UPGRADING DAIRY PRODUCTION AND TREATMENT FACILITIES TO CONTROL POLLUTION MADISON, WISCONSIN MARCH 20-21, 1973, PREPARED FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAM COMPILED BY: ‘ KENNETH S. WATSONTHE TREATMENT OF DAIRY PLANT WASTES UPGRADING DAIRY PRODUCTION AND TREATMENT FACILITIES TO CONTROL POLLUTION Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer ProgramTABLE OF CONTENTS Page Current Practices in the Handling of Dairy Wastes Character of the Wastes 3 Disposing of the Effluent i Stockton, Illinois 6 Norwich, New York 15, South Edmeston, New York 22 Champaign, Illinois 29 II. The Benefits of the Joint Treatment Approach with the City Background 1 Wastevater Treatment Plants 4 The Joint Approach 5 The Relationship vith Industry a Sampling and Analyses B Summary iW III. How Dean Foods Handles the Waste Probl the Chemung, Illinois Dairy Plant In Plant Controls 1 ‘The Waste Treatment Plant 2 ‘The Effluent Losd per 1000 Pounds of Milk 2,3 Performance of the Treatment Plant 5,6 Costs 8 IV. Alternate Methods of Treating or Pre-treating Dairy Plant Wastes? Dairy Waste Compatibility in Municipal systems a Selection Objectives 7 Treatment Alternatives n Other Wastewater Treatment Alternatives 29 Treatment Methods - Summary 32 Case Histories 3h Kent Cheese Co. 34 Eiler Cheese Co. 36 Afolkey Coop Cheese Co. 38 V. Foreign Practice Reprints Pre-Treatment of Dairy Effluent By the Tower Systen a Biological Treatment of Dairy Wastes 10 ‘The Treatment of Creamery and Yoghurt Effluents 13 Spray Disposal of Food Waste 18CURRENT PRACTICES IN THE HANDLING OF DAIRY PLANT WASTES Kenneth S, Watson Director of Environmental Control KRAFTCO CORPORATION Glenview, IllinoisCURRENT PRACTICES IN THE HANDLING OF DAIRY WASTES A paper prepared for presentation in the session on treatment for the U. $. Environmental Protection Agency Technology Trasnfer Seminar for the dairy industry. Kenneth S. Watson Director of Environmental Control Kraftco Corporation Glenview, Illinois The laws, regulations guidelines and thus particularly the pollution control efforts necessary in the dairy industry are rapidly evolving so it is highly desirable to orient plant management and pro- duction people with what is going on. For these reasons this technology transfer seminar for the industry should be beneficial. We are happy to have the opportunity to participate in this seminar and hope that jointly we can make it fully productive. The treatment approaches and methods which have application to dairy wastes are areas of significance to those who must operate plants today. For these reasons this portion of the seminar will be concerned with the treatment portion of the problem. In addition to hearing from four speakers on various aspects of treatment you will be supplied a brochure covering these presentations and some reprints on foreign practice. ‘The reprints briefly cover treat= ment activities at dairy plants in Canada, England, New Zealand, Finland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark and Germany.The Dairy Wastes Situation The dairy industry is made up of a large number of, for the most part, relatively small plants scattered primarily through the milk producing sections of the nation. These plants range from single pro- duct milk processing or cheese plants to rather complex mlti=product cilities in which milk, cottage cheese, sour cream, ice cream, yogurt, etc., may, for instance, be produced. Since many of the plants are small and located adjacent to municipalities the usual practice has been to connect these plants into municipal sewer systems. In fact almost 90% of the plants dispose of their wastes in this manner. Another reason for this method of waste disposal is the fact that for the most part dairy plant wastes are biodegradable and compatible with the wastewater present in a municipal system. Even fats, oils and greases present in dairy plant wastes are edible and biodegradable so municipalities need not feel the same concern for these materials as is the case with the same constituents of petroleum origin. Since the average size of the dairy plant rules against its being able to afford or pro- fessionally operate a pretreatment facility the industry as a general rule would prefer to buy this sewerage service from the City. As has already been covered, but it probably deserves mention- ing here again in the interest of completeness for this session, plant people should exhaust the in-plant, short-of-treatment approach as the soundest and simplest method of controlling a waste problem. In additionto coming to grips with the pollution problem such action will also re- sult in cost reductions through improved production efficiencies, reductions in losses and reductions in water usage. Character of the Wastes Further, as has been touched upon by other speakers, dairy plant wastes consist mainly of lost raw materials, intermediate and finished products and the cleaning materials required to clean and sani- tize shipping containers and processing space and equipment all carried in the proce: waters being discharged by the plant. In addition, whey is a byproduct of most cheese operations and can become a significant pollution problem, Every effort should be made to keep it out of the sewer system when it can readily be separated from the water being used in the plant. The usual procedure is to concentrate the whey so it can be dried to whey powder or converted into another usable byproduct either at the plant produced or at another location which can economic~ ally be ri ched from the point of production. ‘These whey byproducts are then used as food or feed supplements. Whey is of sufficient signifi- cance that it will again be considered under Irrigation. Milk plant wastes normally have a BOD concentration ranging roughly between 500 and 4000 mg/1 and a COD concentration which usually runs 2 to 2.5 times higher. As a general rule the suspended solids in such wastes are not high enough to be of great significance. Cleaning compounds being used, particularly in larger plants, can be responsible for swings of consequence in the pH of the effluent but these can nor- mally be satisfactorily corrected by equalization by the City or theplant generating the wastes. Disposing of the Effluent The various methods of disposing of dairy plant effluents will next be briefly considered. Biological Treatment Most dairy plant wastes respond to the biological treatment approach. The wastes are similar to municipal wastewater but considerably more concentrated and more readily degraded. Since the biological treat- ment approach most generally represents the best and most economical method of treating dairy wastes to reduce the BOD and COD concentrations to acceptable ones, it will be given consideration in this and the other presentations in this session. Since biological treatment of dairy tes is widely provided in municipal treatment systems, one of the Papers will be devoted to this special subject. A second paper will be the story of how a dairy plant uses the biological approach to treat its wastes for stream discharge. Irrigation Irrigation of the process wastes as a means of disposal is a viable approach for some dairy plants. ‘The common methods of irrigation are: spray fields, spreading and ridge and furrow application. The plant has to own adequate land or have it under lease of suitable type to take the volume of wastewater to be disposed of without runoff into the streams of the area. Further, the irrigation land must be close enough so it can be reached by pipeline or truck on an economical basis.Some isolation is necessary for a satisfactory irrigation site 50 no odor nuisance conditions will be created. Further, care mst be exercised in application so ponding on the land does not take place. Irrigation works best in areas where the winter climate is not severe but can be used in such wintry areas if properly operated. Some lagoon holding space, in some cases with the use of aeration, is desir- able in conjunction with the operation of irrigation projects to provide holding flexibility for rainy or wintry periods. Spreading on land represents another method of discarding whey for certain types of plants. There are a significant number of small cheese plants which are somewhat isolated and cannot afford concentration equip- ment and stay in operation, Further, as a result of the volume of whey produced and the scatter of the plants in the particular region central drying facilities cannot be justified. Under these conditions, in order for these plants with their vital cheese production to remain in operation, land disposal of the whey must be practiced, In many are: a mutually beneficial arrangement has been worked out with the farmers in the immediate vicinity of the plant to dispose of the whey on their farms to take advantage of the nutritional value to benefit the land. Acknowledgements The author wishes to expre: appreciation for the diligent ef- forts of representatives of the Environmental Laboratory, the plants and their Divisions for developing the data and assembling it, and for pro~ viding counsel in the preparation of the paper,TREATMENT PRACTICES IN KRAFTCO STOCKTON, ILLINOIS ‘The Kraft Foods Division facility at Stockton, Illinois con- sists of two separate operating plants ~ one for the manufacturing of bulk Swiss cheese and the other for processing whey. All of the whey from the cheese operation is condensed at the whey plant with the majority of it being spray dried along with condensed whey received from other Kraft manufacturing facilities in the area, The balance of the whey is processed into several other institutional and industrial products. The cheese plant is shown in Figure 1. As is indicated in Table 1, the wastewater volume has increased at Stockton from about 86,000 gpd in 1968 to 110,000 gpd at Present, Over this same period, however, the BOD load leaving the plant has been reduced from 1950 to 900 pounds per day by in-plant process modifications and improved housekeeping. The existing waste treatment system has evolved over the almost 60 years that the plant has been in operation through efforts to solve the wastes problem in the simplest and most economical manner. Summer operation consists of pumping the totel plant discharge through the irrigation system on site summarized in Table 2. The concept here is through the use of automatic controls to rotate the dosing of the Land through a preplanned application cycle so overdosing does not occur at any one location and a maximum of percolation, evaporation and transpir- ation of moisture will occur, Thirty-two nozzles are installed on site, each having a capacity of 90 gpm, and dose in rotation. Each has theability to spray roughly an acre. By the use of this approach maximum advantage is being taken of the Land and its cover crop to absorb the total plant discharge. In the winter time an activated sludge system is used the basin for which is shown in Figures 2 and 3. A summary of information on the activated sludge system is shown in Table 3, The basin is operated using diffused air from a bottom diffuser normally supplemented by two floating aerators, The discharge from the basin is passed through a clarifier (Fig. 3A), From the clarifier, final disposal is made to a ridge and furrow system on site. This system is on contour with an overflow of the control gate of one trench to the adjoining trench below. More details are supplied in Table 3. ‘The usable volume of the basin is 570,000 gallons having a detention time of 5 day: It is loaded at about 24 pounds of BOD per thousand cubic feet. When sludge must be removed from the system it is drawn from the clarifier to a sludge lagoon located nearby. Sludge is removed from the lagoon once a year in the spring and spread on adjoining grass Land. For the plant to discharge into the small stream to which it is tributary and meet the very stringent requirements of the Illinois EPA, the effluent concentration would have to be less than 5 mg/l of BOD and 4 mg/Lof suspended solids, The decision was therefore reached that necessary facilities should be installed to retain the effluent on site and depend upon evaporation and percolation for disposal. For these reasons two impoundment and flood control ponds were located at thelowest point on the property. These lagoons of 3,100,000 and 4,250,000 gallons capacity were provided to catch any runoff from the site during either summer or winter operations. One of these ponds is shown in Figure 4. In relating how this plant solved its problem, the point should be made that the solution has been tailored through evolution to this particular plant's waste load in the particular habitat where located. Many processes are in use here, however, which could have application to other dairy plant wastes. The soundest and most economical solution to a plant problem, however, will always be arrived at by tailoring the treatment to the particular situation in question.Table 1 Waste Load Being Discharged by Stockton Plant * WHEY PLANT _CHEESE PLANT TOTAL 1968-9 _1972 1968-9 _ 1972 1968-9 _ 1972 Volume gpd 57,000 80,000 29,000 29,000 86,000 110,000 BOD mg/1 2,900 900 2,400 800 2,700 870 BOD Load 1b/Day 1,370 600 © 580 = 300-1, 950 900 * Significant reduction in the BOD load due to in-plant processing modifications and improved housekeeping.Table 2 The Kraft Foods Irrigation System at Stockton SPRAY FIELD 50 acres of moderately sloping ground 32 operating sprayheads + 2 standby Volume - 90 gpm (each) Coverage - 220 ft, diameter circle (approximately 1 acre) MODE OF OPERATION Automatic 16 circuits - 2 sprayheads/circuit Rotates through 16 positions Preset at 90 minutes per position Mowed - every 3-4 weeks with 6 foot chopper mower -10-Table 3 The Winter System for Handling Effluent at Stockton Activated Sludge Plant Aeration basin: 212" x 68' x 10" Aerators - 3 = 40 HP blowers each delivering 400 scfm @ 4.5 psig 2 floating aerators Volume = 570,000 galions Capacity ~ about 1,3 Lbs. 07/1 BOD applied Clarifier: 24' diameter x 9" SWD - 1/2 HP sludge rake Volume - 30,000 gallons Detention - 7.2 hrs. Sludge Lagoon: 100" x 40" x 10" Volume - 300,000 gals. Supernatant fed back to aeration basin Ridge and Furrow System 10,000 lineal feet on contour 18" deep by 4' wide furrow (trench) separated on 12' centers by ridge Overflow control gates at ends of adjoining trenches etsFIGURE 1 = The cheese plant at Stockton, Illinois with spray fields in background. FIGURE 2 + Aeration basin, air diffusion piping and floating aerators. -2-e “ ~ - a 3 im . aaa FIGURE 3 = Aeration basin - winter operation. FIGURE 3A - The Stockton clarifier. arseFIGURE 4 = Impounding and flood control pond.NORWICH, NEW YORK Coverage of this plant is included in this summary paper because its treatment plant is new and of the biological type which is widely used in the handling of dairy plant wastes. This Sheffield Chemical manufacturing facility is not a typical dairy plant, but its principal raw material is whey concentrated to 50% solids. Among the major products manufactured by this Norwich facility: are lactose, calcium lactate, sodium caseinate and food flavorings. When it became apparent that the lagoon system being used at Norwich would have to be replaced by more efficient treatment facili- ties, agreement was reached with the State of New York that some pilot scale work should be done to provide the basis of design for the new treatment facilities. Consequently, a biological pilot scale unit wes designed and placed in operation in October 1970. ‘The pilot facility shown in the foreground of Figure 5 was, and can still be, operated on @ side stream of the discharge from the manufacturing plant. The activated sludge facility for this pilot unit, operated on diffused air, is shown in ‘the background with the round final clarifier shown in the foreground. The pilot facility was operated for about nine months under laboratory control. During this same period, the design of the full scale ‘treatment facility was moved forward as was a progrem of in-plant, short- of-treatment steps to better manage water and reduce the waste load. Construction of the waste treatment facility was started in July, 1971 and it was placed in operation in February, 1972. eisieThe full scale facility consists of an activated sludge basin broken into three compartments shown in the background of Figure 5, in vhich the flexibility has been incorporated to permit it to be operated using either the contact stabilization or extended aeration mode. The biological treatment basin is followed by a final clarification stage consisting of the two clarifiers shown in Figure 6. Alum is fed to the aeration basin effluent to improve the flocculation in the final clari- fier. When sludge must be drawn from the system, it is removed from the clarifier to a sludge tank to be scavenged from the site. Figure 7 shows the control building in which pumps, blowers, the flow recorder and the laboratory are located. A picture of the laboratory is shown in Figure 8. The treatment facility was designed to handle a hydraulic loading of 250,000 gallons per day end a BOD load of 2500 pounds per day with 90% joval of BOD anticipated. A maximum retention time of 3.2 days was provided in the aeration basins. Additional information on sizes and specifications of equipment is shown in Table 4. Since the level of sus~ pended solids in the manufacturing plant effluent did not appear of great significance, no primary treatment was incorporated in the system. Since the need for feeding nutrients to improve the operation of the system had not been established prior to its being placed in operation anmonia is being fed on an improvised basis into the influent end of the aeration basin. Since the use of ammonia is beneficial, facilities are being added to the system to permit ammonia to be fed on a permanent basis. Siete‘The concept in use at this plant is to completely separate the process wastes from the cooling water so the former can be put through the treatment plant and the latter by-passed around same. Thus, sampling locations have been provided for ahead of, and following, the treatment facilities. Finally, a sampling and measuring station has been provided for monitoring the combined process and cooling vater waste stream which flows into the river. Some feel for the operation of the treatment facilities can be obtained by reviewing Tables 5 and 6. Operating experience, to date, indicates that the 90% reduction in BOD for which the system was designed can generally be met. As, is borne out by low minimum effluent, concen- trations shown in Teble 6, at times the system does go above 90% efficiency in removal of BOD. Operating experience has further demonstrated that the extended aeration mode of operation produces considerably better results than does contact stabilization. A program of relating river conditions to treatment plant opera~ tion has been launched and will be expanded. An initial look at river con~ ditions, on the basis of dissolved oxygen, is shown in Table 7. It vill be noted that as a general rule the dissolved oxygen in the stream is higher below the plant discharge than it is above. Just recently, the pilot facility was placed back in operation to develop a better feel for how to upgrade the performance of the full- scale unit. -7-Table 4 Sizes and Specifications of Waste Treatment Facilities at Sheffield Chemical, Norwich Aeration Facilit: 1, 3 tanks each 160 ft. long, 16 ft. wide, 11 ft. liquid depth, 28160 cu. ft. volume. Loading - 30# BOD per 1000 cu. ft. of aeration tank volume. Agr, 1. 1.5 Opper #B0d design. 2. 3 dlowers each 40 hp., 1200 cfm. 3. 300 coarse bubble air diffusers. Settling Tank 1. 17 ft. diameter, 3600 cu. ft. volume. 2. Retention time 2.9 hours at 1.1 mgd. Table 5, Mean Results Obtained From the Sheffield Chemical Treatment Facility at Norwich" Week Flow BOD mg/1 coD mg/1 pH Ending GPD Influent Effluent _Influent, Effluent __Influent 10/6/72 171040 907 80 33281 369 Th 10/13 222660 1200 5h 3104 154 1.8 10/20 185780 1276 62 3047 2a Ta 1o/2t 153200 1983, 52 hors 70 6.2 11/3 180933 1639 oh shes 312 Teh 1/lo 146120 1570 18 1568 433 6.4 n/it 169920 1023 aL 2533 61 6.2 1i/ak 154480 871 al aghs mH 6.5 12/1. 138140 189: 2 5307 270 5.0 * Based on daily analyses (5-day week) of representative composite samples = 18 -Table 6 BOD Results Obtained from the Sheffield Chemical Treatment Facility at Norvich* Week Inf1uent Effluent Ending mg/1 ng/1 Max. Min. Max. Min. 10/6/72 1608 257 12 16 10/13 22h8 791 Th a1 10/20 isto 118 LOL 15 10/27 3621, 1248 b 29 11/3 2231 1253 189 16 11/10 2873 832 2h 12 n/t 1279 832 ho 4 11/2k 1005 736 31 12 1e/a 21: al 18 3 * Based on daily analyses (5-day week) representative composite samples Table 7 Dissolved Oxygen Conditions in the River Receiving the Discharge from the Sheffield Chemical Treatment Facility at Norwich* Week Above Below Ending D.O. mg/1 D.O. mg/1. 10/6/72 8 10/13 9. 10/20 9 10/27 9. 11/3 10 9 0. 0. 2 11/10 u/it 1 n/ak 1 12/1 2 Winvoobio re ee BEE SSE Sou lo PN oe * Based on daily analyses (5-day week) of grade samples -19-FIGURE 5 = Pilot plant facility in foreground = aeration basin of main treatment facility in background, FIGURE 6 = The two tank final clarification stage. = 20-FLGURE 7 = The control building. FIGURE 8 = The wastewater laboratory in the control building. 2sSOUTH EDMESTON, NEW YORK This plant of the Breakstone Sugar Creek Foods Division pro- duces yogurt and ricotta cheese. The plant effluent is treated on site and discharged into the stream. The wastewater effluent from the processing plant is perhaps somewhat lover in concentration than is the case with thet from many airy plants. From Table 8 it is apparent that the average BOD concen- tration is 485 mg/l and the suspended solids 147 mg/l. As is indicated by the analytical characteristics, every effort is made to keep whey out of the plant discharge. The effluent treatment system consists of a raw wastes pumping station, aerated lagoon, clarifier, sludge basin and chlorinator. A flow diagram of the system is shown in Figure 9. The aeration lagoon is shown in Figure 10 and one end of the clarifier at the edge of the basin can be seen in this Figure. In the center of the aeration basin is located a 20 H.P. high-speed floating aerator shown in Figure 11. After biological treatment in the lagoon the effluent enters a tank which is divided into two compartments and passes through the clari- fier section, with a 2.5 hour holding capacity, which is served by a sludge raking flight. The remainder of the tank consists of e compartment for holding sludge which is removed from the effluent by the clarifier. This sludge is returned to the aeration basin through the use of a sludge sump and pump located adjacent to the tank. The effluent is chlorinated at the flow measuring device to comply with State. requirements because it also carries the sanitary discharge from the plant. = 226‘The treatment facility was designed for a BOD loading of 560 pounds per day and an effluent volume of 172,000 gpd. The design called for removing 85% of the BOD and 90% of the suspended solids. As shown by figures listed in Table 8, the treatment facilities are at present somewhat underloaded. The removal of BOD is averaging about 95% (Table 9). The removal of suspended solids is somewhat less efficient perhaps because the concentration is not high to start with. In both cases effluent concentrations fall well within State specifications. As a result of operating experience the aerator, which was sized to provide 1.5 pounds of oxygen per pound of BOD, is controlled by a timer. It is in operation about 66% of the time which keeps the dissolved oxygen content of the basin between 5 - 6 mg/l. Such an opera- ting mode provides expansion capacity in the treatment facilities and tends to improve sludge settleability over higher oxygen concentrations being maintained in the basin. Provisions have been made in this system for adequate sampling and analyses to control its operation. The treatment plant influent is sampled in a representative manner through a valve on the discharge side of the pump delivering all the wastewater to the system. As the effluent leaves the clarifier, the flow is recorded and totalized using the Kenneson nozzle shown in Figure 12, The flow recorder is shown in Figure 13. 23 -Figure 14 shows the laboratory which handles the wastewater analyses for this plant and another located nearby. It is located within the process plant. Tests which are run include BOD , COD, suspended solids, total solids and volatile suspended and total solids. Operational tests for controlling the treatment system consist of dissolved oxygen, mixed liquor suspended solids, settleable solids and chlorine residual.Table 8 Condensed Sumary of Monthly Averages of the Influent to the South Edueston Treatment Facility Avg. Mex. Avg. Min. Avg. Avg. lbs/day BOD ng/2. 552 408 485, Ao Cop mg/2 1033 955 2010 916 Suspended solids 208 128 162 147 Flow gal/day 142,758 13,880 108,778 Table 9 Condensed Summary of Monthly Averages of the Effluent of the South Edmeston Treatment Facility Avg. Max. Avg. Min. AVE. AVE. dhs/day BOD mg/l. 3.8 1.5 20.8 “18.9 COD mg/1 68 25 47.9 43.5 Suspended solids 56 lt 32 29 Flow gal/day 142,758 73,880 108,778 = 25 -RETURN SLUDGE PROCESS WASTE eee INFLUENT ReAanoN! rear SANITARY FORCE MAIN} WET WELL WASTE HOLDING CHAMBER ‘SAMPLING STATION UNADILLA RIVER Fie.9 TREATMENT FACILITIES - SOUTH EDMESTON PLANT BREAKSTONE- SUGAR CREEK DIV.PIGURE 10 ~ Aerated lagoon ~ South Edmeston. FIGURE 11 - Floating aerator - South Edmeston. = 26 -FIGURE 13 ~ Recorder final effluent.FIGURE 14 ~ Wastewater laboratory in quality control laboratory. = 128 =CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS Kraft Foods has had a margarine and salad dressings plant in operation in Champaign since the early 1960 period. In 1968 the decision was reached to make a major expansion at the Champaign plant. Kraft Foods’ present production facility is shown in Figure 15. In the foreground the right hand portion of the facility is in general the original oil plant in which margarine, salad dressings and ofl pro- ducts are manufactured. The left portion of the facility is new, having been placed in operation over a year ago and in which macaroni type products, process cheeses (slices and Velveeta type) and natural cheeses in consumer size packages are produced. ‘The plant immediately behind the Kraft plant on the right is an edible oil refinery operated by the HumKo Operation of the Corporation. It should be noted that the close proximity of these facilities to extensive residential areas means that all phases of environmental control must be carefully practiced. Waste Treatment - In planning for the plant expansion, early consider- ation was given to proper handling of the liquid wastes problem for the expanded facility. As is the Corporation's usual approach, it was pro- posed to the Urbana-Champaign Sanitary District that the District provide sewerage service for the expanded plant at Kraft's expense since the wastes to be discharged would be completely compatible with District wastewater and be degraded in its professionally operated treatment system. After considerable negotiation the District stood fast on its position that it could accept the hydraulic load but the plant would need to ~~provide treatment facilities to meet the specification of: 200 mg/l o£ BOD, 200 mg/1 of suspended solids and 100 mg/l of fats, oils and greases covered in a proposed ordinance. Since business considerations dictated that the production capacities and mix of products already mentioned should be located at Champaign, the only course open was to provide the same type of bio- logical treatment facilities as those operated by the District. ‘These facilities of course mist be operated from now on. The pretreatment facility provided is shown at the left rear of the site (Figure 15). As a result of the configuration of the site it was necessary to separate the primary facilities from the secondary. The design basis for the plant is shown in Table 10. It will be noted that the facility has been designed for a projected 1980 Load. The wastes from the cheese and oil production facilities at Champaign are collected in lift stations and pumped to a surge tank. The items of equipment used in the treatment system are summarized in Table 11. ‘The major units in the primary plant are shown in Figure 16. The surge tank is on the left with the pump house in the center and sludge storage (not presently being used) and grease storage tanks on the right. The next step in the process is the flotation clarifier shown in Figure 17. Grease skinmed from the surface of this unit is conveyed to the grease tank already mentioned. The sludge removed from the clarifier is passed on to the aeration basin to avoid the need for primary sludge handling facilities. = 30+Next, the effluent flows to the aeration basin, the first step in the secondary treatment portion of the system, shown in Figure 18. The discharge from the aeration basin then passes through the final clarifier and into the District system. Gontrolling Operations ~ Arrangements have been made for collecting samples at various points throughout the system, An automatic, composite sampler is located on the final discharge so a continuous record can be developed on the load being contributed to the District. Laboratory control results for the operation of these treatment facilities are run in the quality control laboratory, Figure 19 shows a temporary laboratory setup within the pump house in which emulsion breaking studies were carried out. Table 12 shows the quality of the effluent being discharged into the Sanitary District system at Champaign from the middle of Decem- ber 1972 until the end of January 1973 based on daily analyses. Unfortunately the plant decided to make some changes in its sampling and analytical regime in October and had not again started running BOD analyses on the influent to the plant during the period under consider- ation, The monthly maximum, minimum and mean BOD results on the influent for a three-month period ending with October were respectively 5268, 1113 and 3223 mg/l. Thus if the influent BOD had remained in the same general range for the six-week period under consideration, BOD reductions would have ranged between roughly 90 and 98%. It is apparent from Table 12 that the reduction in suspended solids resulting =31-from pi sing the effluent through the plant ranged between 85.6 and 95.9%. Further the COD reduction ranged between 93 and 97.4%. Since the more work we do in Kraftco on the degrading of edible fats, oils and greases in a plant effluent the clearer it becomes that these types of materials are rather readily degradable in biological treatment systems, as one would expect, this paper will be concluded by looking briefly at this situation at Champaign. Table 13 summarizes the concentration of fats, oils and greases on a monthly basis in the influent and effluent of the treatment plant for the last six months of 1972. The reductions from influent to effluent across the system are accomplished by a combination of the primary and secondary treatment processes in use. It is of interest to note that an average of 97.4% of the fats, oils and greases were removed or degraded by the treatment system described. = 326Table 10 Kraft Foods Champaign, Illinois BASIS OF DESIGN FOR 1980 LOAD Parameters Design Average Flow gpd 500 ,000 gpm 350 BOD ug/L 3,640 BOD Load lb/day 15,000 Suspended Solids mg/1 685 Suspended Solids lb/day 2,850 Grease mg/L 3,140 Grease 1b/day 13,000 - 33+Table 11 Kraft Foods Champaign, Illinois XTEMS OF EQUIPMENT IN THE TREATMENT SYSTEM PRIMARY PLANT Lift Station: Cheese = 2 - 225 gpm- 10,0 H.P. Pumps Oil Plant - 2 - 250 gpm- 7.5 H.P. Pumps Surge Tank 1 + 30'D x 20'H ~ 80,000 gal. with 10 H.P. agitator and sludge rake Minimum Detention Time - 1.5 hours (avg. flow and 6' level) Max. Detention Time - 4.5 hours (avg. flow - 18' level) Flotation Clarifier 1 = 39'D x 10'H ~ 76,000 gal, with sludge rakes and surface skimmer and recycle pressurization system. ‘At 50% recycle and avg. flow - surface settling rate = 625 gpd/ft” Weir overflow rate - 2450 gpd/lineal ft.; detention time = 2.45 hrs. Primary Sludge Storage Tank 1 30'D x 9'=6"H Covered Tank - 42,500 gal. Grease Storage Tank 1 14'D x 29'H Cone Bottom, covered, heated tank - 18,000 gal.Zable 11 (cont.) Kraft Foods, Champaign, Illinois Items of Equipment in the Treatment System SECONDARY PLANT Aeration Basin Rectangular Basin 309 x 149 x 9’ Deep Operation Volume - 2,270,000 Gal. Detention Time @ avg. flow ~ 4.5 days Dorr inka Aeration system using 4-75 HP blowers @ 8,000 scfm each Final Clarifier 1 49'D x 85'H tank = 100,000 gal. with sludge rakes and surface skjmmers At avg. flow - Surface settling rate = 270 gpd/ft Weir overflow rate = 325 gpd/lineal ft Detention time = 4,8 hours Aerobic Digestor 1 = 50'D x 27'H tank ~ 368,000 gal, with 3+ 50H.P, Blowers - 700 Scfm@ 7.5 Psig each Sludge Lagoons (located at Sanitary District's plant site) 2-1 acre surface x 8'D earthen tanks 35°Table 12 The Effluent Being Discharged into the System Kraft Foods, Champaign, Illinois District FLOW BoD mgd mg/L Mean Max Min Mean Dec. 15-21, 1972 Influent 0.283 = = - Effluent 90 45 (54 % Removal Dec. 22-28 Influent 0.210 - - - Effluent 22k 74125 % Removal Jan, 1-7, 1973 Influent, 0.233 = Effluent 130 32073 % Removal Jan, 8-14 Influent 0,269 - - - Effluent 82 3258 % Removal, Jan. 15-21 Influent 0.2620 = - Effluent 21454127 ‘% Removal, Jan, 22-28 . Influent 0.2800 - - Effluent 14209917 % Removal = 36 = cop ss mg/l _mg/1 Mean Mean 4397 1036 1576 96.4 94.1. 5176 1200 37693 92.7 92.2 5157 1244 254 92 95.1 92.6 7471 1807 192 74 97.4 95.9 5434 1210 33797 93.8 92.0 6225 1368 438 184 93.0 86.5- ie Table 13 Removal of Fats, Oils and Greases by the Champaign Treatment Plant of Kraft Foods, 1972 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. ‘TOTAL AVERAGE, INFLUENT EFFLUENT ___ ng/L mg/L % REMOVAL Max. Min, Mean Max. Min, Mean © %= (100) Inf. ff, (Mean) BEC ee 2,780 16L.-1,376 «98 29 ar 96.6 9,023 494 1,945 57 25 35 98.2 1,966 «416 «1,176 = 50 27 39 96.7 2,845 18l 1,134 LLL 15 4. 96.4 4,002 215 1,058 108 6 21 98.0 2,314 243 1,158 _47 4 7 98.5 22,930 1,710 7,847 472 106-200 584.4 3,822 © 285 «1,308 = 79 18 33 97.4FIGUKE 15 = Aerial view of Kraft Foods plant and surroundings. FIGURE 16 - Primary plant (L to R) surge tank, pump house, primary sludge storage tank, grease storage tank. “68hPIGURE 17 - Flotativueclarifier, scum skinmer at 9 o'clock. FIGURE 18 - Aeration basin, blower houses and air piping - primary plant at left, beyond railroad cars. = 39 =FIGURE 19 = Inside pump house = euulsion breaking tests - temporary laboratory setup for F.0.G, = 40 -‘THE BENEFITS OF THE JOINT TREATMENT APPROACH WITH THE CITY Paul T. Hickman, P.E. Hood-Rich Architects and Consulting Engineers Springfield, Missouri Presented at an Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer Seminar for Dairy Industries March 20 & 21, 1973, Madison, Wisconsin er‘THE BENEFITS OF THE JOINT TREATMENT APPROACH WITH THE CITY Paul T. Hickman, P.E. Hood-Rich Architects and Consulting Engineers Springfield, Missouri INTRODUCTION: This presentation is a case history showing the joint munici- pal and industrial approach to water pollution control as practiced in the City of Springfield, Missouri over the past ten (10) years. While it must be recognized that each city and its industries are different in many respects, it is hoped that some of our experiences in Springfield will in some small way assist other areas in their total program of water pollution control. Before discussing our approach and relationship with industry, a brief look at the City's background and location and its collection and treatment systems is necessary in order to give a better understanding. BACKGROUND: The City of Springfield, Missouri is located in the south= western section of the State less than 100 miles from the four-corner area of Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. Within this 100 mile radius, the City of Springfield dominates the area as a growth center by providing markets, jobs, product distribution, services, advanced educa tion, and cultural opportunitie: among other things. The City and its surrounding area has extensive and varied agricultural operations, diversified manufacturing, mining, and rapidly expanding recreational areas, In its function as a growth center the City has experienced a rather phenomenal increase in population and commercial and industrial activities over the past 20 years, Population has more than doubled toits present 125,000, with most of the industry also having been built during this time, Although there is a wide diversification of manu- facturing, the largest single type of wet industry in the City is that of milk and milk product processing. Milk production being one of the largest area agricultural activities, All of the milk produced is funneled into the City either for processing or to transfer points for transporting to other parts of the country. With this and other types of wet industrial processing, wastewater collection and treatment is of paramount importance. In addition to the basic needs for water pollution control, Springfield in its particular location complicates this need even further. ‘As mentioned previously, recreational activities are increasing at a very rapid rate, particularly those associated with water sports, fishing, and camping. Clear lakes and streams can be found in any direction from the City. The physiography of the area is the reason that these many lakes and streams abound. The City in its location ts situated on a plateau and straddles a major drainage divide. This plateau is underlain with a layer of Limestone bedrock containing many fractures and solution channels. The wastewater treatment plant re- ceiving streams have their beginnings either in the City or in the im- mediate vicinity. It is with these conditions in mind that the City of Springfield and most of the surroudning area is keenly aware of the need in most instances for something more than conventional wastewater handling and treatment, It is also the main reason that the joint ap- proach to wastewater treatment is more desirable than individual indus- 2+trial treatment facilities and their multiple effluent discharge points. Recognizing this, the City in 1955 began a continuing capital improvement program of wastewater facilities and a system of charges to pay for the system's operation, maintenance and debt requirements. In order to explain the entire program I will briefly discuss the City's collection system and treatment process before relating our joint approach and relationship with industry. COLLECTION SYSTEM: Once, while looking at the City archives, we discovered an 1886 ordinance which adopted a separate system of sanitary sewers for use in the City. The ordinance went on to explain that due to the general topography of the City, at that time, storm drainage could be handled by normal surface runoff, thereby making it unnecessary to con- struct underground storm sewer piping. Since there were no sewers of any type constructed prior to that time, the practice of separate sewer construction has continued until today. However, there are times when we wonder if this is absolutely true when large flows are experienced at the treatment plant due to illegal stormwater connections. The first sewers were constructed in 1894 and has continued steadily until today, There are now approximately 500 miles of City- owned sewers serving 50 of the City's 62 square miles. A rather major Program of trunk sewer construction is now underway to serve not only the remaining area within the City but a large area surrounding it. When this program is completed by 1978, the total service area will be ap- proximately tripled in order to serve both those areas that are currentlybeing developed and those projected by the City's comprehensive metro= politen plan for development. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS: The City is currently seryed by two wastewater treatment plants which utilize conventional primary treatment followed by the Kraus Modified Activated Sludge Proce for secondary treatment. Both plants also employ separate anaerobic sludge digestion. The larger of the two plants, the Southwest Wastewater Treatment Plant, is designed to handle peak flows of 16 MGD with a BOD population equivalent of 310,000. (Figure 1) This plant accepts all of the industrial waste from the City with the exception of one milk bottling plant, which is tributary to the much smaller Northwest Plant. Presently, the Southwest Plant {s nearing both hydraulic and BOD capacity. Plans are now being developed to double the hydraulic capacity and to conform with recently adopted State Effluent Guidelines which call for a maximum effluent BOD of 20 mg/l and NH,-N (ammonia nitrogen) of 2 mg/l, along with disinfection, turbidity, and taste and odor requirements, BOD removal will be done utilizing the pure oxygen Process in an altogether new facility. The existing aeration tanks and air supply system will be used as nitrification tanks to convert am- monia to nitrates to meet the recommended maximum of 2 mg/l NH,-N. Nitrification will be followed by multi-media filters to remove excess suspended solids. Disinfection is to be done by utilizing ozonation which will also aid in turbidity and taste and odor removal. It is anticipated that these improvements will be under contract in approxi-mately one (1) year. THE JOINT APPROACH: The reasons for a joint approach to the solution of water pollution control problems are many and varied and can most certainly be different for different areas. We feel that the more important advantages to the joint approach in Springfield are: its 3 Economy of Scales. In other words, it is good sound economics to spread the cost base, both capital and operating, so that everyone in the community benefits directly or indirectly, I feel sure that everyone can understand the soundness of this concept as long as the costs in reality are equitable. Professional Water Pollution Control Plant Operation. Our approach to this has been that the City is in the business of wastewater treatment, While it is quite pos- sible that some individual industries could provide capable operation if they were required to provide treat- ment; however, the overall results most certainly would be less than that provided at a single well-operated combined plant. Conversely, continued surveillance by City forces would be required if operation is separate, thereby adding costs to the City's operation. Mutual Cooperation and Trust. When the joint treatment method 1s approached realistically by both the govern- mental agency and the industry, considerable public goodcan result, However, unless all parties work at main- taining this mutual relationship, the whole concept can break down with some very drastic results. HISTORY: During April 1955, the citizens of Springfield voted nearly ten (10) million dollars in bond funds for some very major sanitary sewer and treatment improvements. Included in these were replacement of sev- eral existing trunk sewers which were in a badly deteriorated condition, construction of several new mains, rehabilitation and enlargement of the smaller treatment plant, construction of the new 12 MGD Southwest Plant, and a new 6 MGD pump station. Of the total $10 million authorized, $4.4 million was issued in the form of revenue bonds and was used exclusively for the treatment plants and pump station. One of the provisions of the election was the establishment of a system of sewer service charges to (1) retire the revenue bond debt, (2) operate and maintain the sewer system, (3) establish a one (1) year's debt reserve ($256,000), and (4) establish a depreciation and replacement fund of $300,000 to be used for unusual or unforeseen experiences that might occur, and (5) to establish a fund to receive any surplus income to use for any minor capital ex- penditures that might be needed. This charge was established in 1956 and has been, and is, a separate fund used exclusively for the sewer system. Prior to this time the sanitary sewer system was operated by funds from the general revenue of the City. In establishing the charges Council w attempting to placethe system in a self-sustaining financial position and to distribute the charges as equitably as possible. In enacting the charge ordinance, which prescribed various volume rates to be charged, Council also included the permissive pro- vision for surcharges to be levied against those industries that dis- charged wastewater with BOD and/or Suspended Solids contents greater than domestic strengths, However, when the sewer service charges first become effective in March 1956 these surcharges were not included. In December 1959 the new 12 MGD treatment plant was placed into operation with an ultimate design of 12 MGD nominal hydraulic capacity, SS population equivalent of 100,000 and a BOD population equivalent of 165,000, It was immediately seen that hydraulic and SS capacities were in Line with predictions of 1955 but the BOD was higher than predicted. However, following several mechanical and operational difficulties which arose during the first six months of operation, these higher loadings of BOD were handled adequately, as the Kraus process for handling shock loads had been incorporated into the design. Treat~ ment then proceeded at about the same level during the following two years. During the early part of 1962, the City was faced with exist- ing industry expansion, continued construction of residential sewers and accepting the waste from a chemical manufacturing plant whose production had increased twenty fold since 1957, This waste had a soluble BOD PE of 25,000-35,000. In view of this, it was felt that there were threepossible solutions to the problem: 1. Increase the treatment plant's capacity much sooner than the ultimate design date; 2. Cut down the strength of waste being received by requiring pre-treatment at certain high strength industries, or; 3. ‘That by enacting the surcharges for above normal strength wastes it would provide a more fair and equitable base for treatment costs and that once enacted, the surcharge would be an incentive for industry to review their operation and possibly cut down on volume and strength of wastes discharged and, if not, the additional revenue would aid in a possible plant expansion. After review of the situation, in April 1962 City Council passed an ordinance declaring it mandatory to collect surcharges from users that were contributing wastes with a BOD greater than 1.30 pounds per 100 cubic feet (208 mgl) and/or SS in excess of 1.50 pounds per 100 cubic feet (240 mg/l), at the rate of .9¢ per pound BOD and 1.2¢ per pound SS, Following this, letters were sent to all businesses and in- dustries whom it was thought had wastes of these strengths, explaining the reasons for this action and that members of the City Administration would be personally contacting them in the near future to work out in- dividual details. Considerable sampling, testing, and gauging was done in the initial stages so that a reasonably reliable basis could be used for the surcharge. Also, a great deal of time was spent with both management and technical officials of all industries working out details of the charge, explaining water pollution control terminology, and also -sisting where possible in recommending ways that both volume and load could be reduced, It would be presumptious on my part to say that all things went smoothly, as there were numerous facets of the surcharge system that needed deliberation and negotiation. However, I can say that in all instances a spirit of cooperation and mutual trust existed. The initial results of the program did, indeed, accomplish what was intended in that a certain reduction in BOD and SS loads were ex- perienced and the surcharge produced added revenue. However, faced with steadily increasing population growth and industrial expansion, the City decided to proceed with a minor expansion of the Southwest Plant to increase the BOD handling capability from 165,000 to 310,000 by adding the dual aeration process. ‘The surcharge program continued at the same rate until May 1971, when the citizens again voted bonds for those major improvements to the sewer system which were outlined in the first part of this paper. To finance these improvements, an increase in the basic volume charge of 35% was enacted immediately; concurrently the surcharge was increased to reflect the actual treatment cost experience averaged over the preceding five (5) years for BOD and Suspended Solids removal, plus the additional 35%. Five (5) years were chosen in order to compensate for rising costs, increasing plant maintenance, and reducing unit costs due to increased quantities of BOD and Suspended Solids. The surcharge finally enacted computed to 1.5¢ per pound of BOD in excess of 1.3 1bs/100 cubic feet (208 mg/1) and 2.5¢ perpound of Suspended Solids in excess of 1.5 1bs/100cubic feet (240 mg/l). Again, as in 1962, each industry was contacted before the new charge went into effect to explain the reason for the increase and how it was to take place. In all cases we again experienced only the highest type of cooperation. The financial system we have followed has been and is one that we feel and hope is as near equitable as we are able to make it. Ob- viously, time, traditions, politics, and other numerous policy decisions made over the years tend to complicate true equity. However, in at~ tempting to justify our rate structure under the EPA cost recovery re- quirements, we have explained and feel that it is realistic thusly: (1) The minimum charge for all users should be adequate to cover all debt requirements somewhere midway through the debt period. This we have maintained, The debt of course, pays the capital costs for trunk sewers and trea ment facilities. Basically these are designed and con- structed around volume requirements. (2) Additional volume charges pay for sewer maintenance, administration, and the treatment of BOD and SS up to domestic strengths. I know many people disagree with the reduced rate theory for higher flow volumes that we have. However, it is our feeling that approximately 90% of all sewer maintenance and administrative matters are spent with residential and commercial problems and not in -10-industrial areas. (3) The additional BOD and Suspended Solids charges made on those industries whose load is above domestic strengths is used strictly for excessive treatment costs. This is a straight-forward charge and really the basis for most joint approach methods, although it is only a part of our total financial program, The basic residential volume charge is $1.35 per month for 500 cubic feet or less. Each additional increment is 34¢ per 100 cubic feet. Additionally, the residential charge is a flat rate based on the average monthly usage for the months of January, February, and March to allow for any summertime lawn and/or garden watering. ‘The basic minimum commercial and industrial volume charge is $1.44 per month for 500 cubic feet or less. For usages greater than 500 cubic feet the rate structure is lowered in four steps from 34¢ per 100 cubic feet following the minimum down to 10¢ per hundred for all usage over 40,000 cubic feet. ‘THE RELATIONSHIP WITH INDUSTRI ‘Traditionally, over the years cities have provided wastewater handling and treatment services to industries who desired such service, sometimes at a lesser proportional cost than to the individual resident. However, over the past fifteen to twenty years there has been a gradual trend to equalize costs for water pollution control. This obviously has been brought to a culmination in the newly enacted Federal amendments to -l-the Clean Water Act which requires equitable cost recovery. In Springfield we feel that such a system has been in fully successful opera- tion for over ten (10) years as the city-industrial relationship has been excellent. This atmosphere obviously cannot be maintained unless complete cooperation and trust is maintained by both parties at all times. Oftentimes the City has had to meet and reaffirm this position with industrial management personnel which is in most businesses periodi- cally changed due to promotions, transfers, etc. But, summing up all the details of a joint approach, the City has asked uo more than for a proportional part of the costs to operate the sanitary sewer system. NUMBERS AND TYPES OF INDUSTRIE: Although there are approximately 75 industries in Springfield who are classified under Section D of the Manufacturing Standard Indus- trial Classification, only nineteen (19) are subject to the industrial waste surcharge. The numbers aid types in this category are: + Meat Processing 6 2. Milk and Milk Product Processing 5 3. Other Food and Kindred Products 4 4. Commercial Laundries 3 5. Pharmaceutical 1 Of the total dollar volume the milk industry pays more than 55% of the surcharge receipts. The total load that these nineteen (19) industries place on the system and the treatment plants 4 1. Flow + 8% -12-2. BOD - 487% 3. Suspended Solids- 18% If one takes each of these equally, the average is 25%. Also, if one looks at the total system income from sewer service charges, you will see that these nineteen (19) industries pay 25% of the total. Sampling and Analyses At the very outset of the program in 1962 a sampling crew started a continuous collection of hourly samples from all industries for a three month period to obtain enough background data as was possible in order to arrive at a good average. In order to get a reasonably good composite, four different methods have been used. 1. Water Meter Reading Each Hour-- This is the most frequent use, especially at the smaller industries. The total usage each hour is computed and the sample composited accordingly. Some doubts were rai ed intially about this method; however, over the past ten (10) years the highs and lows have tended to smooth out to a reasonable rate. 2. Kennison Nozzle with Rate Indicator and Totalizer-- Three of the largest industries (two of them milk processors) installed these to measure exactly what is discharged to the sewer. Not -13-only are these meters used for monthly billing purposes, but also for sampling and compositing. The two milk processors also installed automatic samplers of the Trebler type whereby the sample is collected continuously and proportionally and then pumped to a refrigerator for storage. Once each month our sampling crew goes to these plants and starts the sampling equipment. Checks are made during the day to see that it is opera- ting correctly and at the end of the 24-hour period the sample is removed from the refrigerator, half is left with the industry and the other half taken to the wastewater treatment plant labora- tory. Parallel tests are run in the industries’ laboratories for comparison. Occasionally there are some differences, but they have always been resolved. The industry with the other Kennison Nozzle is also sampled monthly by taking hourly composite samples. Parshall Flume with Rate Indicator and Totalizer: One large milk product processing plant installed a parshall flume to also measure directly what is discharged to the sewer. Compositing is done as with the Kennison Nozzle. =14-4, Manning's Formula: One large slaughter and packing house gets their process water from a well which is not metered. Their waste is also discharged unmetered through two separate sewer lines. In order to compute volume and to composite samples, the quantities are measured by taking the depth and recording the velocity. This data is then taken to the laboratory where the chemist uses Manning's discharge curve to composite. ALL testing is done in the wastewater treatment plant laboratory in accordance with the latest edition of "Standard Methods", Multiple dilutions are set up in order to get good BOD range coverage. Following analysis, the test results, along with the composite data sheets, are forwarded to the administra~ tive offices where the surcharge is computed and billing in- structions are written. Sampling and testing frequency was altered many ways over the first few years. Finally it was determined that the four (4) largest firms would be tested each month, the next six (6) were tested every other month, and all industries sampled quarterly. The basis for this frequency was the amount of revenue each produced. Waste Compatibility and Pretreatment: In a joint municipal-industrial system the possibilities -15=of having a waste that is amenable to biological, physical, and chemical treatment is quite good in comparison to individual industrial wastes. However, there are certain industrial wastes that require pretreatment. In Springfield's e practically all of the industry is of the food processing category whose wastes are readily treatable, although shock loads from these industries can be disasterous to a wastewater treat- ment plant. In combating this we have had numerous conferences with industrial management personnel to explain the conse- quences of "shock loads" on the treatment facilities and that should an accidental spill occur, to alert treatment plant personnel immediately. Conversely, several industries have taken steps to eliminate the possibilities of spills and to also reduce BOD and SS loads by taking physical in-plant measures and by having periodic supervisory meetings to urge operational cooperation. To this end we are most grateful ‘Two (2) large industries have wastes that require pre- treatment prior to discharge into the sanitary sewer. One is a pharmaceutical manufacturing waste and the other is a metal plating waste. The pharmaceutical plant employs a large holding basin to obtain a uniform waste mixture and also allow volatile phenolic and other similer compounds to evaporate. Following the holding basin the waste is neutralized with caustic soda to pli and aerated for 24 hours. This process removes volatile compounds, 16-neutralizes and removes approximately 50% of the BOD and CoD prior to being discharged to the city system. The second industry has a metal plating waste from the manu- facture of small electric motors, The waste contains signi- ficant quantities of zinc and hexavalent chromium, The metals are removed by a very elaborate facility constructed in- plant. The chromium is reduced to the trivalent state by sodium bisulfite reduction, it is then removed along with the zinc by caustic soda precipitation. The waste stream contains less than 1 mg/l of both zine and chromium, The metal sludge is then removed by a metal reclaiming company. SUMMARY: ‘The joint treatment approach to wastewater treatment is a reasonable method to a water pollution control program in a great many areas of the country if it is accomplished in the true sense, particu- larly in this day of environmental awareness. While it is not perfect in many respects, the program we have in the City of Springfield works very well by producing sufficient revenue on as nearly an equitable basis as we are able to realistically operate. Taking all aspects into consideration, the cost sharing so that everyone in the community benefits, is the primary reason for joint treatment. Other benefits resulting from this are better treatment, consequently less pollutional materials discharged to the receiving streams, and a closer relationship between government and industry. -17-CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS (KRAUS) WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE f PRIMARY | TREATMENT aan RAW SLUDGE | NITRIFICATION | POLISHING AGOON rt a FINAL TO RECEIVING CLARIFIER STREAM RETURN SLUDGE SUPERNATANT SLUDGE DIGESTION SLUDGE DISPOSAL FIGURE |CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS CURRENTLY IN DESIGN FOR SW. PLANT BACKWASH DIGESTION TO RECEIVING STREAM SLUDGE DISPOSAL FIGURE 2How Dean Foods Handles The Waste Problem at the Chemung, Illinois Dairy Plant George Muck and Ken Killam wrThe Dean plant at Chemung is a fluid milk plant processing about 1.1 million pounds of milk per day. This plant processes and bottles a complete line of fresh dairy products including soft serve ice milk mixes. Cultured pro- ducts, sour cream, buttermilk, and yogurt, are also manu- factured at this location. Cottage cheese was produced at this plant until April, 1972. Waste control and waste water treatment have been a part of this plant operation since 1950. This has been nec- essary because Chemung is a very small community of only a few homes and does not have a municipal waste disposal plant. Throughout the years improvements for waste reduction and segregation have been made both in the plant and in the treatment system. The following examples are some of the prac- tices used to recover and segregate waste inside the plant: 1) Fresh pasteurized product losses are recovered for use in ice cream mix. 2) Product losses which cannot be reused are seg- regated for animal feed. 3) Whey from cottage cheese manufacture was recovered. 4) Cottage cheese rinse water was disposed of through sprinkler irrigation. 5) Uncontaminated water is segregated for coolingtower treatment and the discharge by-passes the treatment plant. The unsegregated waste is discharged to the waste treatment plant and consists of approximately 80,000 gpd and 1150 pounds of BOD, per day. Waste water coefficients for the unsegregated waste load are approximately 0.6 pounds waste water per pound of milk and 1.0 pound BOD, per 1000 pounds of milk. Table 1 shows the monthly averages for these characteristics during 1971 and 1972. The daily averages and the daily maximum and minimums are also given in this table. The waste treatment facility consists of an acti- vated sludge system followed by two lagoons. A flow scheme for this system is given in Figure 1. The influent enters an aerated waste holding tank (A) where the flow and BOD5 is partially equalized. Nitrogen is also added to the influent at this point. The waste then goes into two activated sludge aeration tanks (B) which are operated in series. The reten- tion time in these tanks is approximately 24 hours and a BODs reduction of about 75% is obtained. The next step is two gravity clarifiers (C) which operate in parallel with approx- imately 80,000 gpd effluent overflow and 160,000 gpd return sludge underflow. Activated sludge effluent receives addi- tional treatment in two aerated lagoons (D) operated in series with 20 days retentlon time to obtain an additional #ODsDAIRY PROCESS WASTE WATER CHARACTERISTICS Table 1. DEAN FOODS COMPANY CHEMUNG, ILLINOIS BODs # WASTE # BOD, FLOW BODs POUNDS WATER PER PER 1000 MONTH gpa mg/L. PER DAY pH # MILK # MILK 1-71 88,000 1494 1096 7.49 0.56 0.83 2-71 93,000 2041 1583 7.87 0.55 1.13 3-71 83,000 2070 1433 7.79 0.51 1.06 4-71 91,000 1575 1195 7.02 0.59 0.93 5-71 92,000 1476 1132 7.72 0.62 0.91 6-71 98,000 2117 1730 6.87 0.75 1.58 7-71 89,000 1900 1410 6.80 0.63 1.23 8-71 98,000 isis 1486 6.60 0.72 1.30 9-71 101,000 1135 956 6.65 0.73 0.80 10-72 104,000 1609 1396 7.67 0.73 1.25 11-71 80,000 1215 811 7.90 0.57 0.69 12-71 80,000 2470 1648 7.40 0.55 1.36 1-72 64,000 1520 811 7.14 0.43 0.66 2-72 63,000 1638 860 6.52 0.49 0.80 3-72 61,000 1450 738 6.32 0.42 0.59 4-72 63,000 1430 751 7.14 0.48 0.68 5-72 63,000 1368 719 6.85 0.51 0.69 6-72 69,000 1618 930 7.00 0.59 0.95 7-72 81,000 1854 1252 6.82 0.59 1.25 8-72 90,000 2242 1683 7.30 0.68 1.53 9-72 82,000 1570 1074 6.75 0.62 0.97 10-72 70,000 1207 705 7.10 0.50 0.61 11-72 76,000 1604 1017 8.24 0.53 0.91 12-72 75,000 1962 1227 7.33 0.55 1.18 Daily Avg. 81,400 1712 1156 7.16 0.58 0.98 Daily Max.140,000 3400 2667 9.10 0.75 1.58 Daily Min. 23,000 817 670 5.60 0.42 0.61 Estimated SS = 300 mg/1 or 200 pounds per dayonmvowy Raw waste equalization tank Figure 1 Activated sludge aeration tanks Clarifiers Aerated lagoons Settling lagoon Chlorinator Sludge aerobic digester WASTE TREATMENT FLOW SCHEME IX) TREATMENT PLANT CHLORINE. Conract AREA PARSHALL FLUME pircn AERATION ‘AREA SCALE OF FEET 40 80 go Out fall & Discharge Flume and Ditch to Piscasaw Creek at Village of Chemung County of McHenry , State of Ilinois Application by Dean Foods Company 25 June 197} Date SHEET 2reduction of about 70%. The total BOD, reduction is 90-95%. A lagoon settling zone (E) of 4 days retention time achieves a ss reduction of approximately 85%. The lagoon effluent is chlorinated (F) and mixed with the segragated cooling water prior to discharge to the stream, An aerobic sludge digester (G) is used to further reduce BOD, and concentrate ss in waste activated sludge. The digested sludge is applied to an approved 21 acre irrigation site. The effluent characteristics from the various steps in the operation are shown in Table 2. These figures are monthly averages for 1971 and 1972 and again the daily aver- ages and maximum and minimums are given. The final effluent consists of approximately 80,000 gpd chlorinated lagoon eff- luent and 200,000 gpd cooling water discharge. The combined effluent contains approximately 30-60 mg/1 BODs, 35 mg/1 SS, 25 mg/l PO,, 5 mg/l NH3 and 0.5 mg/l NO3z. The effluent char- acteristics given in Table 2 are displayed graphically in Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2 shows the suspended solids varia- tion monthly for the activated sludge effluent and the lagoon effluent. Figure 3 shows the monthly variation in BOD, for the influent, activated sludge effluent, and the lagoon eff- quent. The major components of the waste treatment complex were initially installed as follows:Table 2. EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS DEAN FOODS COMPANY - CHEMUNG, ILLINOIS MONTH ACT. SLUDGE EFF. LAGOON EFF. FINAL BODS ss BOD, ss BOD, ss DO mg/l___mq, ng/?__mg/2 mg/?_mg/1__mg/1 1-71 964 680 25801 77 layed 2-71 1001 910 247 30 148 79 3-71 602 764 201 45 98 2 743 4-71 81s 585 180 30 64 4300 5.1 5-71 160 40 795 634 114 837.1 6-71 365 595 120 40 56 3500743 7-7 136 268 58 25 44 14d 8-71 215 342 65 25 26 1500 (7.5 9-71 581 578 68 21 22 147.0 20-71 926 499 70 30 32 55 7.7 1-71 883 953 65 30 19 2600 8.1 12-71 581 84 44 126.6 1-72 875 1246 135 78 49 6 8.0 2-72 540 303 129 49 103 360«:12.7 3-72 744 648 109 63 15 2607.2 4-72 46 31 360-123 35 28 744 5-72 129 170 137 78 23 288.0 6-72 114 102 100 65 33 44° 9.1 7-72 825 788 84 36 8 25 6.3 8-72 325 221 104 48 45 2200 «8.1 9-72 165 848 80 86 a. 567.6 10-72 82 107 69 81 6 55 6.9 11-72 132 298 51 42 35 597.9 12-72 172 349 23 40 (7.8 Daily Ave. 470 492 139 80 47 3507.6 Daily Max. 2100 1300 2200 1200 260 303° 16.4 Daily Min. 20 30 40 10 1 4 3.5Figure < ne DEAN FOODS COM UNG, ILLIN 1971 19 JANUARY ~ NOVEMBER JANUARY - DECEMBER1) 1950 - One aeration tank and one clarifier. 2) 1961 Second aeration tank and clarifier. 3) 1967 - Sludge digester and irrigation site. 4) 1968 - Lagoons and chlorinator. The replacement cost of these components is esti-~ mated at over $500,000. Annual operating cost is estimated at $50,000 including personnel. Since January 1972 a technically educated operator has been employed to conduct waste sampling and analyses, interpret results, and operate the treatment plant in a scientific manner. Prior to that time the responsibility was divided between the quality control laboratory and mainten- ance department. The final effluent has had little impact on the receiving stream as shown by the upstream and downstream data in Table 3. The final effluent of approximately 280,000 gpd is discharged to a stream with a ten year low flow of around 890,000 gpd. Upstream and downstream BOD, and DO have been nearly identical.gE w-e= SCIT ‘ ea tl oe Lm ot — = SEor0gTI SS. a TE pbb - Eee ewroe 5 C <> ange 4 z Ne 5 5 =L-= z —-S=4- J 8 weete7-r*? S5-4-s4 |-- == i. d —— Loewe 2 Seorr” ey Ls <2)Table 3. WATER QUALITY - RECEIVING STREAM DEAN FOODS COMPANY - CHEMUNG, ILLINOIS UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM MONTH BOD, DO BOD, DO na/t mg/L ng/? mg/1 1-72 5 13.6 5 13.5 2-72 10 14.4 iL 14.5 3-72 14 10.9 12 10.2 4-72 8 12.2 6 12.2 5-72 4 14.6 2 14.7 6-72 4 10.1 5 11.9 7-72 9 11.2 il 11.7 8-72 3 11.3 3 12.5 9-72 - 11.0 6 11.3 10-72 3 12.0 3 12.1 11-72 3 13.5 1 14.0 12-72 1 14.1 oO 14.3 Avg. 6 12.4 5 12.7 Daily Max. 30 16.0 30 16.6 Daily Min. oO 8.0 0 9.6 -10-ALTERNATE METHODS OF TREATING OR PRETREATING DAIRY PLANT WASTES by William C. Boyle and L. B. Polkowski Polkowski, Boyle & Associates Madison, Wisconsin IvDairy Waste Compatibility in Municipal Systems Wastewater Characteristics - In comparing dairy wastewaters with domestic sewage it is apparent from Table I that there are some significant differences that have a bearing on the treatability and the influence of dairy wastewater on municipal treatment systems. It is apparent that dairy wastewater is a strong waste in terms of most parameters Teported when compared to domestic wastes. The BOD values are high and vary widely, but the fact that the BOD values are high is also indicative that the wastewater is amenable to biological treatment. Because the values of BOD for dairy wi are considerably higher than that of typical strong domestic wastes, often surcharge rate structures are applied when discharged to municipal system: The suspended solids or filterable solids are higher than domestic wastewater, but the solids in dairy wastewater are too finely divided to permit separation by gravity settling whereas for domestic wastewater there is a high fraction of suspended solids that are settleable and, thus, amenable to primary sedimentation treatment. Primary sedimentation practices usually provide good removals at low operating and capital costs relative to the biological treatment costs sociated with secondary treatment. It is apparent in Table I that the average Phosphorus and Grease content of dairy wastes are higher than normally expected in domestic wastewater. Removal costs in municipal treatment related to P removal may be assessed to the contributing source thereby increasing overall treatment costs for use of municipal systems. The range of grease concentrations encountered in dairy wastes may exceed acceptable limits imposed by ordinances.5uio TABLE I. Comparative Wastewater Characteristics Dairy Wastevaters Domestic Sewage (9) Wastewater Harper (6) Numerow(10) Other Characteristic Range ‘Ave. Strong Medium __ Weak BOD, 5 day 20°C 450 - 4790 1885 |: 1890 *15-4790 300 200 100 Solids, total 135 - 8500 2397 | 4516 1200 700 350 Dissolved, Total — — 3956 850 500 250 Fixed — — — 525 300 145 Volatile — _ 325 200 105 Suspended, Tot: *24 - 5700 560 350 200 100 Fixed _ _ 75 50 30 Volatile #17 - 526000 == — 20 10 5 Settleable Solids ml/liter — _ — 0.3-5.0(11) | 20 10 5 Nitrogen, Total as N 15 - 180 7 | 85 40 20 Organic -—- _ 73.2 35 4s a ‘Ammonia _ 6.0 50 25 12 No, _ 0 NO, -—- 0 Phosphorus (Total as P) 11 - 160 50 59 20 10 Grease (fat) 35 - 500 209 | --- 150 100 50 pH #5.3-- 9.4 TL | an — _ _ Note: *Industry values (6)Fats, Oils, and Greases (FOG) - In municipal treatment systems treating domestic and industrial wastes, ordinances are usually adopted to protect treatment works by restricting the concentration of FOG to less than 100 mg/l. Discharges to the collection system in excess of 100 mg/1 would be prohibited or require pretreatment. This particular requirement has been adopted widely for municipal treatment systems largely due to the available "Model Ordinances" which serve as a guideline for drafting ordinances applicable to specific municipal systems. The principal difficulty experienced with this criteria is that the analytical methods employed do not account for the wide variety of substances included in the determination; 1.e., any material which is hexane soluble and would be subsequently evaporated with the hexane at 100°C, and nor does it distinguish between that matter which is of mineral origin (non polar) versus the fatty matter which may be of animal or vegetable origin (polar). What appears to further complicate the collective nature of the analytical method is that there is no differentiation of the organic matter as to its physical state; 1.e., whether these materials are present in wastewater as a liquid or a solid, which may readily separate by floatation, or whether they may be present in finely divided states, emulsified or soluble and not be readily separable. Also, no distinction is made to the ability of the wastewater treatment facilities to remove these substances with the usual type of treatment afforded. For example, although most municipal treatment plants have device: in primary and now, secondary settling units to remove floatable substances by retention baffles extended below the water surface with scum movement andwithdrawal provisions, very limited attention has been drawn to the fact that fats, oils, and greases of animal and vegetable origin are treatable biologically in both aerobic and anaerobic treatment units whereas FOG of mineral origin are considered to be non-biodegradable. However, in order for biological degradation to occur, the FOG of animal and vegetable origin must be in physical states which will permit the biological to be in contact with the material to be oxidized. Thus, if the material separates, or floats on the surface of treatment units, the opportunity for biological degradation is greatly reduced and this phenomenon has long attributed to the desired exclusion of these substances from municipal treatment systems. It is well known that anaerobic treatment systems such anaerobic digesters are particularly adaptable to the degradation of FOG from animal and vegetable origin, and are capable of higher degrees of volatile solids reduction and greater volumes of methane gas production per pound of volatile solids reduced than for other organic matter common to municipal wastewater systems. This is not so for FOG of mineral origin wherein these substances effectively coat insoluble surfaces and in high concentrations will effectively impair biological treatment by interfering with the normal mass transfer functions of the biological system. In instances where gross oil or grea are present in wastewater regardless of the origin whether mineral or from animal and vegetable sources, these substances which are readily separated by traps or limited gravity aration units, should not be discharged to a municipal collection system where adverse effects of sewer clogging, excess accumulations in vet walls, oroverloading of scum removal equipment occurs. For the discharge of dairy wastes to a municipal system, in that the FOG are biodegradable, the principal concern should be directed to whether or not the greases present will readily separa cause wer clogging, or excessive accumulations. Floatable greases should be removed Af these adverse affects are noted; however, FOG in highly dispersed states, although in concentrations that may exceed the presently accepted level of 100 mg/1 should not be excluded from municipal treatment systems. For example, it would not be very practical to require biological pretreatment of dairy wastes for the purposes of removing FOG of a dispersed nature if the municipal system is going to utilize similar biological treatment Processes. It is expected that there will be a concentration limitation imposed on FOG of mineral origin and FOG of all types which are readily floatable. Likely no restrictions would be placed on FOC in dispersed states of animal and vegetable origin. Municipal System Discharge - As indicated by others, the practice of discharging dairy wastewaters to municipal systems is commonplace. In that dairy wastes are highly amenable to treatment generally, the main concerns have been directed to the intermittant nature of the waste discharges wherein the treatment plant may be heavily loaded or subject to large variations for certain wastewater characteristics which may adversely affect treatment. Because of the emphi 8 on establishing rate structures which reflect the costs to the users of the system for appropriate Federal construction grant monies, the dairy industry as with other wet industries are becoming more waste conscious, employing in-plant waste saving devicesand overall in-plant improvements to minimize waste discharges. The character- istics of dairy waste discharges which have received some attention, the degree of which is somewhat related to the percentage of dairy waste to total municipal waste sources wherein a high proportion of dairy wastes to total municipal wastes appears to highlight the following wa: characteristics: 1. The highly variable nature of dairy wastewater strength in terms of BOD which may necessitate the employment of pretreatment in the form of aerated holding faciliti The ability of a municipal wastewater system to treat highly variable wastewater strengths depends upon the dilution and attenuation of the characteristic with wastes from other sources and of more concern is the resident times or detention times in the treatment units. A wastewater treatment plant that employs extended aeration having detention periods approaching 24 hours, little to no benefit can be realized in employing equalization or holding facilities prior to discharge to the municipal system. In other instances, where treatment detention periods are shorter, recirculation may assist but the overall effects must be observed and analyzed on a case by case basis. Another dairy wastewater characteristic which draws considerable attention is related to the pH variation of the wastewater particularly when peak alkaline conditions occur during cleanup operations. In that an upper limit of pH 9.5 has been adopted in certain Sewer Ordinances for the discharge of wastes to a municipal system, this value can be easily exceeded during periods of washing. Equalizing the waste discharge to attenuate the pH variation may be recommended but not always be warranted.Whereas pH values below 5.5 may be harmful to sewers because of the corrosive nature of the wastewater, generally sewer construction of alkaline earth materials would not be so effected by high pH discharges. In terms of biological waste tr ment, large variations in pH over a short period of time in the biological treatment unit would be undesirable. The variation of pH at the source or industry discharge may have little bearing on the pH in the biological treatment unit and, therefore, should be monitored in the treatment unit, not the discharge to the unit, to determine the pi range encountered. Again, in activated sludge treatment systems with long detention periods, the pH variations are usually slight although large variations in pH may be evident in the incoming waste stream. Regulation of discharges to a municipal waste system and required pretreatment must be consistent with the desired end result sought. 3, With the increased emph: 8 on removing nutrients such Nitrogen and Phosphorus from wastewaters that contribute to eutrophication or fertilization of lakes and streams, this may place an additional burden on contributors to the system particularly from point sources where the use of phosphorus bearing cleaning compounds are employed. Costs for treatment in some instances have been prorated on a per pound basis of P present in the waste discharges to the system. The methods employed for P removal usually result in high operating costs due to chemical additions required for P removal and the handling of the resulting sludge with fairly nominal annual costs associated with capital improvements related to this removal function.Selection Objectives In the selection of a wastewater treatment alternative, a number of factors must be evaluated prior to making a final choice. Among those objectives which most often dictate process selection are (a) effluent criterts (b) site limitations, (c) wastewater characteristics, (d) waste- water variation, (a) expected life, and (£) cost to treat. A brief outline of these objectives will precede a more extensive discussion of specific treatment alternatives. a. Effluent criteria - The requirements for effluent quality from the dairy industry have been most recently released by U.S. EPA in Augus 1972, based upon two comprehensive studies of the dairy industry: (1) "Study of Wastes and Effluent Requirements of the Dairy Industry" by A.T. Kearney & Co. (8), and (2) "Dairy Food Plant Wastes Treatment Practices’ by Ohio State University (11). Currently,these requirements based on “pest practicable control technology currently available" cover only the wastewater parameters of BOD and suspended solids. For new plants under construction or existing plants now beginning abatement programs, effluent BOD and si ended solids concentrations of 30 mg/l are expected regardless of influent characteristics unless there are unusual or restrictive character- detics. Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, further states that even a higher level of treatment will be required by July 1, 1977, in those areas where secondary treatment -7-will not meet water quality standards. Water quality standards must be achieved in all instances and every evidence indicates that these standards will be whole body contact recreation plus fish and aquatic life standards. It is likely, therefore, that requirements for the dairy industry will become more stringent in years to come. Furthermore, additional water quality parameters such as phosphorus and nitrogen will undoubtedly be added to the list. Restrictions on phosphorus removal have already become a reality in many parte of the country. In Wisconsin industrial discharges in excess of 8,750 pounds of total phosphorus per year must achieve 85% removal if discharged to the Lake Michigan watershed. It is apparent, then, that the dairy industry will have to be concerned about its phosphorus discharges in the near future. In process lection, therefore, it 1s important to consider flexibility and versatility of the flowsheet in providing reliable and consistent effluent quality. One must consider design based upon both expansion of production and increased restriction of pollutant discharge. b. Site limitation - In the selection of either pretreatment or complete treatment facilities, the constraints of the site often play a controlling role. Low first cost processes normally require substantial land areas and may restrict development within one quarter to one-half mile of the facility. Urban locations may be restricted by odor, noise, or thetic regulation. Costs to pump or othervise transport wastewaters to remote locations should not be overlooked.¢. Wastewater chai teristics - Wastewaters from dairy plant Proce! @ normally include substantial concentrations of fats, milk proteins, lactose, some lactic acid, minerals, detergents, and sanitizers. Normally, a major fraction of the pollutants is in a dissolved organic and inorganic form not susceptible to plain sedimentation or floatation. The strength and quality of wastewater varies widely even within plants producing the same dairy food product That plant management plays an important role in these characteristics is brought out by the Ohio State Report (11). A complete compilation of wastewater characteristics is presented in this document. The wastewaters from most dairy food operations are substantially higher than domestic wastewaters as measured by BOD, COD, total organic carbon and volatile solids. The carbon to nitrogen ratio of dairy food Processing wastewaters is normally higher than that of domestic waste as is the carbon to phosphorus ratio. Thus, processes ordinarily acceptable for handling domestic wastewaters may require considerable modification for handling dairy process wastewaters. Furthermore, combined treatment of dairy plant wastes with municipal wastes may be substantially influenced by the proportion of dairy plant to municipal waste flows. d. Wastewater variation - Discharges of dairy wastewater are often batch or slug dumps producing wide variation in flow and quality. Treatment processes may be sensitive to either qualitative or quantitative shock loads ca d by these variations. It is important to evaluate treatment performance reliability in light of these expected variations.Equalization, neutralization, or other forms of load equalization must be considered in concert with the treatment proc es which are sensitive to widespread variation. Expected life - The treatment facility being designed by industry normally has a short design period owing to the uncertainty in production forecast: Currently, this policy would seem to be of considerable advantage, especially to the small dairy operation. Yet, as mentioned earlier, every consideration should be given to building in flexibility and versatility even for short-term programs. Considerable advantage may accrue to dairies considering modular construction to meet current needs with an eye to the future. £. Cost to treat - Of greatest impact in process selection is the cost to treat which includes both capital investment and operational maintenance costs. All too often, proce: lection based on first cost has proved to be the poorest choice owing to excessively high operation and maintenance costs. Considerable care must be observed in interpreting cost data in the literature. Hidden costs such as sludge handling and whey separation and treatment are often neglected in these analyses. Data on municipal treatment process costs are of little value in assessing costs to treat dairy wastewaters. =10-Treatment Alternatives In the discussion of alternatives to dairy wastewater treatment, no reference will be made to whey treatment or handling. The processing of and whey is extremely important in the overall waste disposal progr should be considered separately from other wastewater disposal problems. In the overwhelming majority of cases whey should not be treated in combination with other dairy wastewaters. The characteristics of whey normally lead to serious treatment plant upsets and would result in excessively high costs to treat by most procedures currently employed. Biological Waste Treatment Dairy plant wastewaters are most often treated by biological treatment processes owing to the relatively high fraction of readily biodegradable compounds present. Since the major fraction of pollutants in dairy wastewaters is dissolved and colloidal organic and inorganic matter, chemical coagulation and precipitation of milk waste constituents has met with only partial succes resulting in relatively poor removal of organic matter and producing voluminous quantities of chemical sludges. Biological processes, then, provide the most economical process for removal of the substances. The rate of biochemical stabilization of the organic compounds in dairy food wastewaters is normally dictated by the rate of degradation of milk proteins. Limitations of sential growth nutrients such as nitrogen or phosphorus, the toxic effect of detergents or sanitizers, or inhibition or repression of the activity of specific enzymes caused by lactic acid or whey proteins may further exert a controlling influence on stabilization rates. In general, however, a biological process can be -11-designed that will effectively and consistently stabilize a major fraction of the degradable waste constituents, This may be most effectively accomplished by an assortment of processes including aerobic systems, anaerobic systems, or combinations of the two processes in either suspended or fixed film reactors. The design of biological wastewater treatment processes is dependent upon (a) the stoichiometry of the biochemical reaction, (b) the rate at which this reaction proceeds, and (c) the dispersion of the was constituents within the reaction vessel. A vast literature exists in sanitary engineering related to the modeling of biological treatment Proc Investigators recognize the great complexity of the system and considerable effort has been recently exerted to develop a unified concept acceptable to the profession. Suffice it to y that such an agreement is still a long way off. The biochemistry of milk wastewater stabilization has been the eubject of numerous investigations since the early 1950's. Considerable effort has provided a general understanding of the mechanisms of milk decomposition and some general stoichiometric relationships have been reported. The selection of biological reactor type and the mode of microorganiem-wastewater contact are critical to the expected performance of the treatment system. Normally, the microorganisms may be held in suspension by aeration or mechanical mixing (suspended growth reactor) or they may be grown on surfaces over which wastevater is directed (fixed film reactora). The hydraulic regime produced in either reactor type will aleo dictate the apparent performance of the system. Thus, flow configurations -12-described as plug flow, completely mixed, partially mixed with longitudinal dispersion, batch operation and complete-mixed-in-series are often used. Im practice, the design of biological wastewater treatment processes is often based upon empirical design parameters and rules of thumb. The magnitude of these parameters or standards of design are applicable primarily to domestic wastewater systems and should not be employed for di gn of dairy plant wastewaters. A fundamental approach to biological wastewater modelling in design for industrial w: tewaters requires some experimental study. Where funds are limited, reliance upon information in the literature is second best, but extreme care must be taken to insure that treatability of the wastewater in question is realistically parallel to that being used as the model. The following sections briefly describe a number of biological processes which have been employed successfully to treat dairy wastewaters. The performance of these proce: + based upon past experience, is also Presented merely to provide some idi of the range of performances expected under the design conditions. The strengths and weakness of each process for dairy wastewater treatment application are also cited. Activated Sludge Process - One of the most popular methods employed for the treatment of dairy wastewaters is the activated sludge proce! Flowsheets of several of the activated sludge process modifications appear in Figures la, 1b, and lc. The process provides aerobic biological treatment employing suspended growths of bacterial floc. High concentrations of organisms, maintained by sludge return, reduce overall reactor size. The organisms are separated from the treated effluent by means of plain sedimentation.Dairy wastewaters are normally treated in modifications of the conventional process flowsheet. Experience over the years has indicated that long hydraulic detention times, in the order of 15 to 40 hours, produce most satisfactory process results. In addition, a completely mixed flow regime appears most satisfactory providing an adequate dampening effect on the wide fluctuations in wastewater flows and strengths. The use of long detention time - completely stirred reactors (extended aeration, Figure 1c) precludes the use of special flow equalization facilities. Even pH fluctuations normally found in the raw wastewater stream will be significantly attenuated in this system. Batch fill-and-draw activated sludge systems are also quite popular in the treatment of dairy wastewaters. These processes, too, normally operate over long periods of detention time and provide substantial dampening of flow and strength variations. ‘A very complete compilation of activated sludge performance for dairy wastewaters appears in the Ohio State Report (11). A brief summariza- tion of selected findings from both recent reports on dairy wastewaters (8 511 ) are presented in Table 11, along with ranges of design paramete! It is apparent from examining Table II that a wide range of both influent and effluent BOD valu is reported over a considerable range of detention times and volumetric loads. In general, superior performances are achieved at longer detention times although conscientious plant operation is paramount to successful performance. Two important design paranetet sludge age (pounds of volatile suspended solids [VSS] under aeration divided by pounds of VSS wasted or lost per day) and loading velocity (pounds of BOD applied per pound of VSS under aeration), are missing from this table. It ie difficult to obtain reliable data on these two parameters from the -1b-literature, yet they truly define process performance. The active microbial population (often expressed as VSS in activated sludge systems) ie an important variable, too, in describing overall system response. Absence of these values in Table II makes a clear delinéation of expected performance a difficult task. Based on past experiences, it appears that BOD renoval efficiencies for dairy wastewaters in excess of 90 percent can be consistently maintained in extended aeration activated sludge plants. More germaine, however, is that effluent BOD concentrations below 30 mg/1 may be difficult to achieve consistently, even at long detention periods and sludge ages. Note that for raw wastewater BOD concentrations of 1500 mg/1, 98 percent BOD must be achievable. Of great importance in evaluating the consistent performance of the activated sludge process is the settling properties of the mixed liquor. Bulky sludge is not uncommon in plants treating dairy wastewaters, and the discharge of poorly settled sludge with the effluent will substantially elevate effluent BOD valu Even with extended aeration, as much as 30 percent of the effluent volatile solids may contribute to the total effluent BOD. Oxygen requirements for stabilization of organic wastewaters in activated sludge are proportional to both the active biomass and the applied BOD removed. Laboratory or field analyses re employed to ascertain these requirements. Oxygen for the activated sludge process may be provided by one of numerous types of diffused air or mechanical aeration systems. Oxygen -15-> est - Selected Values Activated sludge ¢ ) Activated Sludge ( ) Oxidation Ditches ( ) Aerated Lagoons ( ) Aerated Lagoons ( ) Type Septic Tanks and Digesters TABLE II Performance of Biological Treatment Systems Dairy Food Wastewaters Influent Effluent ‘Removal of +~—-Volumetric BOD BoD BOD Load (mg/1) (mg/1) @) (a BOD) 1000 cuft 620-1620 13-290 64-99 25-130 - - 24-99.6 _ 410-2150 3-165 74-99 4-41, 1000 20 98 -- — _ 70-99 _ Performance of Anaerobic Treatment Processes on Dairy Wastewate: Influent Effluent = % Removal Detention BOD BoD BOD Time 7000-500 300-400 50-87 3-10 Hydraulic Detention (Hours) 15-50 Number Surveyed 12 Number of Plants Reported 100 10transfer rates are dependent upon the aerator selected, the geometrical configuration of the reactor and the wastewater characteristics. This latter information is normally obtained through experimental studies. Diffused air requirements often quoted for dairy wastewaters are usually in excess of 1500 cubic feet per pound of BOD removed. Coarse bubble diffusion devices are commonly recommended for dairy wastewaters they clog le: frequently and require less maintanance than the fine bubble systems. Jet aerators, shear devices, surface turbines, pumps, draft-tube aerators, rotors and brushes are also popular. Oxygen transfer rates for these mechanical devices normally range from 3 to 4.5 pounds of standard oxygen per gross horsepower hour at standard conditions. The production and handling of sludge from activated sludge plants treating dairy wastewaters are not well documented in the literature. Long aeration times (extended aeration) are recommended to destroy (endogenous repiration) a substantial portion of the sludge solids. Nonetheless, Provision must be made to handle some sludge since a certain fraction of the elud| ie nonbiodegradable and will eventually accumulate. Disposal of accumlated sludges from dairy wastewater activated sludges continues to be a problem as sludj handling may be very costly. Aerobic digestion of accumulated sludge followed by land disposal represents a desirable relatively low cost alternative. The activated sludge process is less sensitive to temperature than other biological processes. Toxic effects of sanitizers and pH variations are usually effectively reduced through the use of extended aeration ~ completely mixed systems. Furthermore, the stability of activated ~16-sludge settling properties is more effectively enhanced in completely mixed systems employing low BOD loading velocities. Finally, long-term aeration employing sludge ages in excess of 10 days will normally produce highly nitrified effluents (a property likely to be desirable in the future if effluent standards are adopted for ammonia discharges). The removal of phosphorus by activated sludge systems is poor, normally ranging from 35 to 50 percent. Chemical precipitation, usually prior to final sedimentation, employing aluminum or iron salts will effectively remove phosphorus from final effluents and may serve to enhance settling properties of poorly settling sludge. Cost of the activated sludge proce: are summarized in Tablerirbased on data available in the Cost of Clean Water Series - Volume III, Profile 9 (1). All costs are reported as 1963 dollars. Uni otherwise noted, costs are based on a "medium" plant size with current technology. Capital coste are based on dollars per 1000 gallons of design flow, whereas operation and maintenance costs are based on pounds of BOD, and 1000 gallons of wastewater treated. Considerable caution should be exercised in placing emphasis on these figures since construction costs continue to rii rapidly and local conditions will fluctuate considerably from the national norm. In addition, the level of treatment efficiency required has not been stipulated in the compilation of these figures, but stringent effluent criteria may substantially elevate this figure. Finally, sludge disposal costs are often neglected in the: figures, a fact which may lead to serious under- estimates of true wastewater treatment costs for those processes generating high sludge volunes. -17-Oxidation Ditches - The treatment of milk wastewaters in oxidation ditches has been acceptable practice for a number of years in Europe. The oxidation ditch is an extension of the activated sludge process employing a ring-shaped circuit or ditch usually 6 to 10 feet deep (Figure 2). Aeration is provided by cage or brush aerators mounted at several points along the ditch in order to circulate flow around the circuit and to maintain sufficient velocity to keep solids in suspension. Baffling of rectangular lagoons with appropriately located flow directors will achieve the same effect. The oxidation ditch may operate a continuous system or as a batch proce: I£ operated in a continuous mode, a clarifier is incorporated as an integral part of the system. Typical performance data for oxidation ditches appear in Table Il. As we noted with the activated sludge process, considerable variation in loading, detention time, and process efficiencies are apparent. There is considerable evidence in the literature that at detention times in exces of 50 days and at volumetric loadings less than 15 pounds BOD/1000 cu ft effluent concentrations of less than 30 mg/l are achievable. High mixed liquor VSS, in excess of 4000 mg/l, are attainable with the configuration when employing sludge recycle. There is no evidence to suggest that this particular configuration will more successfully treat dairy vastevaters ae compared with the extended aeration activated sludge processes at similar loading! Costs of this process are likely similar to those for activated sludge although there is not enough operating experience in this country to provide reliable cost data. ‘Aerated Lagoons - Aerated lagoons are also an extension of the - 18 -activated sludge process wherein no sludge return is normally practiced. As a result, the active bioma (WSS) in the lagoon is low, thereby requir- ing longer periods of aeration for comparable performance. Data in the literature on the performance of aerated lagoon systems for dairy wastewaters is sketchy. Only three reports appear in the comprehensive survey by the Ohio State group (11), and 5 are reported by A.T. Kearney & Co. (8 ). (Table I1). From this data there is evidence that current effluent requirements can be met by proper designed aerated lagoon systems. Design would most definitely be predicated upon careful pilot or laboratory scale studies. The experience of these authors is that aerated lagoons are a satisfactory alternative for dairy wastewater treatment. Currently a number of these systems for dairies are in successful operation in Wisconsin. An example of two of these systems will be Presented later. In most cases aerated lagoons are not vigorously mixed, resulting in sedimentation of suspended solids within the lagoon itself. These "facultative" aerated lagoons, therefore, remove organic matter through Physical separation and anaerobic and aerobic stabilization. Mixing intensities normally required to prevent sedimentation in aerated lagoons require power inputs of approximately one order of magnitude greater than for oxygen dispersion alone (8 HP/MG vs 80 HP/MG). On the other hand horsepower requirements for aeration are dependent upon the oxygen uptake rates, the required hydraulic detention time, and the oxygen transfer characteristics of the wastewater. In most instances the -19-Power required for aeration is less than that required for complete solids suspension and the engineer must determine whether the added Power costs justify this added mixing capacity. In the majority of cases, dairies have not opted for this extra expense, a decision which appears sensible. Aerated lagoons are normally designed as a series system. Most aeration is provided in the first cell, followed by a second or third cell of quiescent settling and stabilization. Normally lagoon depths of 10 to 15 feet are desirable although shallower cells are allowable for polishing or quiescent settling. Algal growths occurring in the qui ent cells may cause a deterioration in effluent quality and should be avoided, if possible, through proper outlet design, covering or filtration. Aerated lagoons are temperature sensitive, producing poorer quality effluents in the winter months. Most engineers size aerated lagoons based on winter operations. The onset of warmer temperatures in the spring may result in increased biological activity in the anaerobic zones of "facultative" aerated lagoons. This activity often results in depletion of lagoon dissolved oxygen causing odors and loss of efficiency. Aerator designs should provide for this eventuality, especially in the poorly mixed lagoon systems. Aeration is normally provided by either surface or submerged aeration equipment. In northern climates, surface aerators require considerable maintenance for ice removal and in retaining effective and consistent operation. Submerged units will not normally be effected by cold weather but orifices may clog (as with activated sludge) and mixing -20-velocities are usually low. Land requirements for aerated lagoons are high and most states require substantial distances be maintained between lagoons and residences. Because of long detention times, no flow equalization is required when employing lagoon systems. Sludge handling is relatively minor in most lagoon systems, although some provision may be made to dewater quiescent lagoons in the event of significant solid buildup. Anaerobic digestion normally maintat a relatively small sludge volume on the lagoon bottom. Nitrogen conversion to nitrate is usually complete in aerated lagoons. Phosphorus removal is reported to range from 30 to 80 percent depending upon season of year. Phosphorus precipitation would account for this removal and resolubilization of precipitated phosphorus is likely to occur during certain periods of the year. Costs for lagoon construction and operation are presented in Table IIL. Land costs were estimated at $300.00 per acre (1 ). Stabilization Ponds - Stabilization ponds cover a variety of lagoon systems employed for wastewater treatment. As compared with aerated Lagoons, stabilization ponds depend upon surface reaeration and photosynthesis for oxygen supply. For dairy wastewaters with strengths in exce: of municipal wastewaters (300 mg/1 BOD), lagoon surface areas or active algal populations must be extremely large. There is no practical method currently available in the midvest for maintaining algal cultures in the concentrations necessary to effectively treat most dairy wastewaters. Solar insolations are too low and winter conditions too severe for succe! ful operation. Surface area requirements would appear prohibitive -21-~ ez - TABLE III Cost Comparisons for Wastewater Treatment - Base Year 1963+ Capital Costs - $/1000 gal* Creamery Cheese Condensed Tce Cream Milk & Milk Cottage Cheese Ridge & Furrow 325 366 380 35 300 Spray Irrigation 927 1070 1070 1080 850 Aerated Lagoon 540 1170 100 78 1410 Trickling Filter 2030 5050 1350 5050 4050 Activated Sludge 1360 3360 900 3380 2700 LBS BOD/d 153 66 236 2.9 502 Gallons/d 17,200 4100 162,000 6400 19,600 Production-Lb/d 3,900 3400 46,200 890 gal/d 39,500 milk 630 cot.chs. Operation & Maintenance** Creamery Cheese Condensed milk Ice Cream Milk & Cot.Cheese $/2000ga1_“$/1b ||$/1000gal__$/1 11 $/1000ga1_$/1b |] $/1000ga1_§/1b_|]$/1000ga1. $/1b Ridge & Furrow 0.18 0.02 0.20 0.01 |} 0.21 0.14 0.21 0.47 0.17 0.01 Spray Irrigation 0.51 0.06 0.60 0.04 0.59 0.40 || 0.60 1.32 0.46 0.02 Aerated Lagoon 0.30 © 0.03 0.66 0.04 |} 0.06 0.04 || 0.04 0.09 0.77 0.03 Trickling Filter 1.12 0.13 2.80 0.17 || 0.75 0.51 || 2.78 6.10 f} 2.23 0.09 Activated Sludge 0.75 0.08 1.87 0.12 |] 0.50 0.34 1.84 4.06 1.48 0.06 + From "The Cost of Clean Water - Volume III, Industrial Waste Profile 9, Dairies, FWPCA, Washington,D.C. June 1967 (1) * Cost per 1000 gal design flow ** Cost per 1000 gal total waste flow or per total pounds of BODfor most dairy wastewaters, being approximately 15 to 20 lbs BOD/acre/d. Thu: a dairy producing 500 1bs BOD per day would require at least 25 acres of land for stabilization ponds. In addition, at least one-quarter mile must be maintained between lagoon and the nearest residence. The Ohio State Report (11 ) represents a compilation of perforn- ance of stabilization ponds. With few exceptions, effluent BOD exceeds that currently required by current effluent quality standards. The State of Wisconsin has stated that, if the New Federal Water Pollution Control Act is enforced as written, “treatment processes such a stabilization ponds would no longer be permitted as the sole means of treatment". Based on the factors discussed above, there would appear to be little advantage in considering this method of treatment for dairy wastewaters. Trickling Filters - The trickling filter process in contrast to suspended growth processes employs a fixed support medium to maintain the active organisms within the wastewater stream. In the past this medium hi been rock, slag, or other low cost materials providing a large surface area per unit volume with a high void volume. Recently, numerous types of low weight, high specific surface plastic media have been developed for this purpose. Organic matter associated with the wastewater is absorbed or adsorbed into the fixed biological film and is subsequently oxidized. Oxygen is normally provided by natural ventilation within the fixed bed although positive airflow may be provided to achieve more effective process operation. Contact time of the waste in trickling filters is normally short depending upon the application rate to the filter and the filter depth. Conventional =22-filters are 6-8 feet deep whereas the plastic media filters may be constructed as high as 30 feet. Increased contact time is provided in some filters by recirculation of treated wastewater back through the filter. The mode of recirculation varies considerably from plant to plant. Trickling filters are followed by clarification facilities in order to intercept and remove sloughed solids from the filter. Filter sloughing is a natural process snd must occur in order to maintain an active biological mass on the media. Heavy accumulation of biological growth on the media surface will lead to filter clogging and poor oxygen transport. There are numerous flowsheets currently employed that use the trickling filter process. The engineer selects a flowsheet which makes best us of the existing site and provides greatest operational flexibility for the wastewater being treated. Filters are normally designed based upon either hydraulic load (millions of gallons per acre per day MGAD) and organic load (pounds of BOD per 1000 cu ft per day) and they are normally classified as high or low rate in accordance with these loading parameter Considerable controversy still surrounds the selection of the appropriate design parameter and ite order of magnitude. The performance of trickling filters treating dairy wastewaters has been summarized in the Ohio State Report (11 ). Examination of this extensive tabulation is confusing and of little real value to design engineers. As with the activated sludge tabulations, wide variation exists in both performance and magnitude of design parameters. Scatter diagrams Prepared in the report (11 ) would suggest that neither hydraulic load -23-nor organic load control process efficiency to any great extent. Proce: efficiencies range from less than 10 percent to 99 percent over ranges of hydraulic loading of from 0.14 to 20 MGAD and organic loads ranging from approximately 2 to 175 1b BOD/1000 cu ft day. Clearly, many of these reports are for roughing filters employed for pretreatment only. The A. T. Kearny & Co. Report ( 8 ) summarizes performance efficiencies ranging from 35 to 99.8 percent for 48 plants reported. It is clear from thie data that trickling filters, properly designed, may achieve current effluent quality standards. Indications are that plants designed at hydraulic loads less than 2.0 MGAD and organic loads 1¢ than 20 1b BOD/1000 cu ft/d may have a reasonable likelihood of success in achieving low effluent BOD. Such generalizations, hovever, are not sufficient that dairy food processors should employ them without considerable investigation. Currently, the State of Wisconsin has not favored trickling filtration as an effective means of secondary treatment. Winter operation often deteriorates effluent quality and covering of existing filters is strongly recommended in northern climates. The proper ventilation or oxygen transfer in trickling filters is paramount to successful performance. Dairy wastewaters exert high oxygen demands as compared to municipal wastewater (per unit volume of waste) thereby putting a high demand on oxygen resources in the filter. Poor air circulation caused by heavy biological grovths, clogged underdrains, and waste channeling will result in serious odor conditions, development of massive biological growths and deterioration in effluent quality. Positive ventilation procedures may effectively be employed to improve operation. -24-For this reason it is felt by these authors that the controlling design parameter in the case of high strength wastes is organic loading. Recirculation of wastewater through the filter is oft advantageous to eliminate excessive growths, reduce filter fly populations, and reduce odor. Cooling effects of recirculation are undesirable, however, during the cold winter months. The use of pli tic media filters for dairy wastewater treatment may prove to be most advantageous. More uniform void volumes and high specific surfaces will promote more effective oxygen transfer and wastewater contact with the bioma: In addition, considerable savings may be realized in land area when deep filters are employed. Trickling filters handle shock loads moderately well although effluent quality may suffer for short periods. Whey should never be applied unless slowly added over long periods of time and filter design should account for this addition. Nitrogen conversion to nitrates will eccur only on lightly loaded filters (usually less than 5 1b BOD/1000 cu ft/d) and phosphorus removals are poor, uaually being less than 35 percent. Sludge Produced in trickling filters, although less voluminous than that from activated sludge processes, must be subsequently handled. Anaerobic or aerobic digestion of sludges followed by land disposal are most commonly applied procedures. The cost of trickling filter treatment appears in Table IIT. Plastic media filtration may be more expensive than indicated in this tabulation; however, a higher quality effluent will normally result more consistently than with conventional rock filters. =25-Rotating Biological Discs - The rotating disc proce: modification of the trickling filter process whereby the fixed biological film 4s rotated through the wastewater. First developed in Germany in 1955, there are now over 1000 installations in Europe alone. Research in the United States has developed a lighter, lower cost disc providing higher surface area. A large biological surface is provided by a series of closely spaced discs mounted on a rotating horizontal shaft. (Figure 3). The discs are slowly rotated at approximately 2 rpm through the wastewater while submerged to approximately 40 percent of their area. Organic matter is sorbed by the biomass on the disc and is subsequently oxidized in the Presence of oxygen. A positive means of excess film sloughing is provided by the shearing action caused by the rotation of the discs. The biological discs are normally staged so that a number of discs rotate within a given enclosed reactor cell. Wastewater passes from cell to cell through openings in the cell walls. This separation of reactors in series provides an advantageous development of specialized biological cultures for the waste constituents during each phase of treat- ment. Thus, by adding additional cells, one may achieve progre: ively higher levels of oxidation including complete nitrification of the waste- water. This cellular structure also reduces the effect of shock loads to the system. A clarification facility is required to remove sloughed biological solids from the discs. Performance data on the biological disc in treating dairy waste- waters is scant. An example of one such application is given later in this paper. Design parameters currently used for the process are based -26-upon a hydraulic loading (gallons per day per sq ft) and plant staging. Sludge production in these units are normally comparable to that in trickling filters and methods of handling and disposal parallel those discussed earlier. Costs of this type of treatment are still preliminary although it ie apparent that operation and maintenance costs will be very low. The only power consumed is that used to rotate the disc shaft. Anaerobic Processes - The anaerobic treatment of dairy process wastewaters has been practiced for many years in small dairy operations through the use of septic tanks. During anaerobic decomposition, lactose is rapidly converted to lactic acid, lowering the pH. In addition, fats and proteins are decomposed to amino acids, organic acids, aldehydes, alcohols, and other anaerobic intermediates. This phase of biodegradation is often referred to as acid fermentation and little BOD, COD or organic carbon "removal" is achieved. A second phase of biochemical reactions, methane fermentation, may also proceed, converting the organic acids to methane and CO). This gasification step subsequently "removes" BOD from the system a gas. At "steady state", one reaction feeds the other resulting in a relatively constant pH and organic acid level. If conditions within the reactor become unfavorable for the methane bacteria (the most sensitive of the two groups of bacteria in this reaction system), acid build up will occur causing further deterioration of the process, a decrease in PH and a reduction in gas production. Successful anaerobic proce: designed for BOD removal, must develop 4 successful balance between these two phases. Anaerobic processes normally have not been successful as complete -27-treatment systems, since effluent quality 1s often poorer than that required by stream standards. The process does, hovever, offer a successful low cost process for wastewater pretreatment. Even if only the acidification step is achieved in the anaerobic process, considerably higher rates of aerobie stabilization may be realized with this pretreated effluent. More rapid decomposition of organic acids and anaerobic intermediates under an aerobic environment may result in smaller and wore effective aerobic processes than could be achieved without this pretreatment. Although quiescent holding tanks (septic tanks) have been used to treat dairy wastewaters, improvements in the anaerobic process have resulted in considerably better overall performance. Anaerobic contact Processes, employing mixing with sludge return have proved to be successful in accelerating the conversion of organics to methane and CO). The use of anaerobic fixed film contractors (anaerobic trickling filters and bio logical discs) have also been examined. Results of several reported experienc with anaerobic processes appear in Table 11 . Little data is available on anaerobic contact processes and fixed film reactors. The evidence indicates that approximately 50 percent of the applied BOD can be removed in quiescent digestion systems with little advantage gained beyond 4 days of detention time. Greater removals may be realized through more effective contact between the biomass and wastewater. Imhoff tanks may aleo provide more consistent results due to the separation of digestion and sedimentation processes. ‘The anaerobic process is sensitive to shock loads, temperature -28-and toxic chemical Process efficiency may seriously suffer when temperatur of the wastewater drop below 10°C. Certain sanitizers, high concentrations of ammonia and numerous metal cations are toxic to methane bacteria. Anaerobic systems must be covered and should be ventilated adequately. Safety precautions should be taken owing to the presence of methane. Cost dlable. Precast of anaerobic systems are not readily a septic tanks range from $400 to $600 including installation up to 1500 gallon capacity. Tn most instances use of precast tanks in series is more economical than larger cast-in-place tanks. Operation and maintenance costs for a robic processes is dependent upon whether mixing is employed. Costs for simple septic tank operation range from $100 to $200 per year depending upon pumping and hauling costs. Low operation and maintenance costs are due largely to the absence of power requirements and the infrequent need to dispose of accumulated sludges. Other Wastewater Treatment Alternatives Irrigation - The use of irrigation as a treatment and dispos: method for dairy plant wastewaters is most efficacious. It represents the best alternative if the proper type of soil is available in large enough acreage. Details of land irrigation practices have been covered in subsequent Papers eo that only a brief discussion will be presented here. The succes of irrigation methods depends upon the use of proper application rates and the effective pretreatment of the wastewater prior to disposal. Careful attention must be paid to the alternating of irrigation plots and provision and maintenance of the cover crop. High sodium concentra- -29-tions may seal soil particles. Wastes high in particulate matter should be adequately screened prior to irrigation. Recently, considerable success has been achieved by employing the soil as a biological filter. Permeable soils are underlain by tile fields which intercept the percolating wastewater. Nutrients are removed by the soil and its cover crop yielding percolates of high quality. Recycling or additional polishing of the percolate may be required prior to surface discharge. Ridge and furrow irrigation of dairy wastewaters has met with little success in the upper midwest. Odor nuisance, standing water, and maintenance difficulties are attributed to this method of land disposal. A summary of irrigation practices is detailed in the Ohio State Report (11 ). Costs for irrigation methods are presented in Table IIb Costs for land are based on a value of $300.00/acre. Filtration - The filtration of wastewaters normally provides a polishing step prior to final discharge. Filtration may be provided by microscreens or granular filtration devices employing diatomaceous earth or sand or mixed bed filtere of materials such as anthracite and sand or activated carbon and sand. The state of the rt of wastevater filtration ie relatively new and considerable research continues to improve filtration technique: Further details may be found in Culp and Culp (4 ). Slow sand filters, 12 to 30 inch deep, employ filter sand for approximately one-half that depth underlain by coarse sand, gravel, and an underdrain system. Application rates of up to 3 gallons/sq ft/d are employed. Filter cleaning is employed when headlosses reach 8 to 10 feet. -30-‘The filter is then partially dried and the top layer of sand and sludge are removed. Clean sand is subsequently added prior to placing the filter back in operation. In general, slow sand filters are expensive to operate, require large areas and provide only moderate performance. Rapid sand filters on sand or mixed bed filters are considerably more popular for tertiary treatment processes. Application rates of 3 to 6 gal/sq ft/minute are commonly employed. Cleaning of filters is provided by backwashing the filter with treated effluent. In treating dairy wastewaters, the filtration step may be required as a polishing operation to achieve the desired BOD or solids concentrations. If the selected treatment process results in effluent concentrations high in degradable suspended solids (lagooning or even activated sludge proce! filtration may prove f ible. In most cases, filtration processes may be added to most process flowsheets at a future time to improve overall effluent efficiencies. If the treatment process achieves complete stabilization of the wastewater or if suspended solids are mineralized, f4ltration may not provide much advantage to the overall process flowsheet. Chemical Methods - Chemical precipitation of dairy food wastewaters 4s not widely practiced primarily because of its high cost and its nominal effectiveness in organic matter removal. In some cases, wastewaters high in fats or colloidal matter might be effectively pretreated by addition of metal cations such ae calcium, aluminum or iron or by polyelectrolyte additions. Voluminous amounts of sludge normally result with the metal alts requiring expensive methods of sludge handling and disposal. Poly- -31-electrolytes may provide advantage heretofor not attainable with other chemica: Small quantities of polyelectrolyt: may affect substantial removal of solids at a reasonable cost. To date, the state of the art is not advanced enough to justify chemical methods as a reasonable alternative in the majority of cases Membrane Processes - The use of molecular sieves, electrodialysis and reverse osmosis membrane systems has only begun. Considerable success for whey treatment has been predicted. Where water reuse or product recovery is feasible, these methods may prove successful. Costs at this time are high and normally discourage use in most dairy wastewater treatment schemes. Carbon Adsorption - Carbon adsorption technology in the treatment of wastewaters has rapidly advanced over the past 5 years. Carbon adsorption systems are becoming competitive with biological treatment processes in the treatment of municipal wastewaters. Carbon systems are normally sized on the basis of mass of COD removed per mass of carbon. Carbon requirements for dairy wastewaters would be high and the cost of treatment ie still not competitive with other alternatives. As effluent requirements increase, however, it is not inconceivable that carbon adsorption will be the competitive choice. A detailed discussion of carbon adsorption theory and application may be found in Culp and Culp (4 ). Treatment Methods - Summary In summarizing this discussion of treatment processes, a brief tabulation h been provided to et the reader in a summary evaluation. Table Iv has been prepared to give some guidance as to each process ~32-- ze - TABLE IV Comparison of Treatment Alternatives Effluent Quality Reliabi- Cost Type Bop/Solids Ammonia Phosp.|| lity ||Capital 0 & M || Land | Response || Economic Regat. || _to Shock|| Life (y rs) Oxidation Ditch ‘Aerated Lagoon Stabil.Pond Trickling Filter Biological Disc Anaerobic Processes $.¢2,.4¢44 tote+4tH poretete tedtsa dt t.t42433 Irrigation Activated Sludge t (Ext. Aer) 1s 15 20 30 1s 15 20 20 Key: +H - Excellent A - High H+ - Good A ~ Average + - Fair L = Low 0 - Poorcharacteristic. In selecting a treatment process, the engineer must consider carefully all alternatives open to him. The preliminary design may be based to some extent upon values reported in the literature. Final selection, however, should be based on treatability tests. This becomes more critical as effluent requirements become more stringent. The data presented in Table Iv relates primarily to the effectiveness of these processes to achieve current effluent standards (1.e., BOD of 30 mg/1 consistently). As effluent standards become more stringent, it will be more difficult to achieve "excellent" performance from many of these processe! ‘The processes discussed above were considered as separate treatment entities. In practice, it is wise to look at combinations of thes processes so that advantages may be taken of the best parts of each. Thus, anaerobic pretreatment followed by aerobic polishing may provide a more economical alternative than the aerobic process alone. Tabley briefly summarizes the characteristics of a number of selected “ ertiary" wastewater treatment proces: |. As pointed out earlier, selection of "tertiary" or polishing processes is dependent upon local effluent requirements, the current treatment process employed, and the characteristics of the treated wastewater. In the next section, a brief discussion of three case histories are presented to give specific details of the types of design that may be employed. =33-TABLE V Tertiary Treatment Processes Effectiveness in Effluent Polishing Process Effectiveness in Removing: Susp.Solids BOD COD = Nitrogen Phosphorus Microscreening + + oO 0 0 Sand Filtration a (+)* o 0 0 Granular Carbon + + + 0 oO Lime Clarification + + oO 0 + Lime Clarification & Dual Bed Filtration ++ + 0 0 aad Key: ++ Excellent > 80% ‘*Depends op nature of Suspended Solids + Good > 50% 0 Poor < 50% - 3a -CASE HISTORIES 1, Kent Cheese Co., Kent, Illinois- (3 ). The Kent Cheese Company specializes in the production of Ricotta, Parmesan, Romano, and Mozzarella cheese. During the study, an average of 13,000 pounds of cheese were produced per day (excluding Sunday) producing approximately 17,000 gal per day of wastewater with a BOD of 270 pounds per day and a suspended solids loading of 85 pounds per day. Sources of wastewaters were from the rinses and washes associated with milk storage, transmission lines, vats and pasteurizer. Whey was collected and transported to another site for recovery. The wastewater treatment system consisted of two equal volume aerated lagoons in series (Figure 4). Each 12 foot deep lagoon holds 955,000 gallons providing a detention time of 56 days based on design flow. The first lagoon was provided with thirteen-6 foot long 18 inch diameter Helixors (Polcon Corp) arranged in a pattern along the flat portion of the lagoon bottom. Three additional aerators are arranged in a triangular pattern near the inlet end. Two-240 scfm Gardner Denver rotary blowers Provided the air supply for the lagoons. Water surface elevation in the lagoons was controlled by placement of a 4-inch cast iron riser pipe at a fixed elevation to maintain a 12 foot water depth. The aerators were of the submerged air-lift type insuring operation throughout the year (Figure 5). Oxygen transfer studies conducted during a one-y r study indicated that standard transfer rates ranging from 2.2 to 4.1 1b/HP-hr were achievable. Low mixing velocities were -34-observed with the diffuser pattern and basin geometry employed in this lagoon. Very light accumulations of sludge (less than 2 inches) were noted after one year. Results of lagoon performance bi on BOD appear in Table VI . Wastewater temperature had the greatest effects on process performance. ‘An overall average removal of 97.3 percent produced an average BOD concentration of 52 mg/l, ranging from 155 mg/1 to 12 mg/1 during the one year study. Poorest performance occurred during the winter months (Jan-Feb) but high oxygen uptake rates occurring in April through mid-July produced zero dissolved oxygen concentration in the primary lagoon causing odor and sludge rising problems. This unusually high activity has been attributed to rapid anaerobic decomposition of benthal soldis accumulated over the cold winter months. During the one year study approximately 65 percent of the nitrogen was removed. Highest nitrate production occurred in warm summer months. Effluent total nitrogen concentrations ranged from 0.2 to 10.6 mg/l averaging 3.8 mg/l. Total phosphorus removals of approximately 50 percent were observed resulting in an average total phosphorus concentration of 21.6 mg/l. Total capital investment for this plant in 1970 was $49,500 or $2900/1000 gallons of design flow. This ie substantially higher than the 1963 costs estimated for aerated lagoons for cheese processes (Table 111), Over the first year of the study the operation and maintenance costs were approximately $6000 resulting in unit costs of approximately $0.13 per pound BOD and $2.05 per 1000 gallons.- BSE - TABLE VI Performance of Two Stage Lagoons - Kent Cheese Co. Influent Prim.Lagoon Eff. | Sec.Lagoon Eff. | Overall Removal | Temp. Quarter Flow BoD SS ‘BOD 3s BOD SS BOD 3s 1971 (gal/d) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/L) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) “¢ Jan-Mar 14,900 | 1,940 658 226 403 106 155 94.5 73.4 1 Apr-June | 17,300 | 2,040 600 204 477 61 119 97.0 80.1 17.8 July-Sept.| 20,000 | 1,530 547 122 239 21 43 98.5 92.2 21.7 Oct-Dec. | 15,200 | 2,100 595 216 445 31 au 98.5 81.3 9.5 averane 16,900 | 1,910 602 209 395 52 108 97.3 82.0 _2. Eiler Cheese Company, De Pere, Wisconsin (2,7 ). The Eiler Cheese Company proce: 30,000 pounds of milk per day into 3,000 pounds of American cheddar and Colby cheese. The treatment plant was designed to handle 3,000 gallons/day of wastewater, with a maximum of 5400 gallons/day, and a BOD load of 90 pounds/day (2000mg/1). About half of the milk handled is received in can: the washings from which constitute the major source of wastewater. The balance of wastewater results from whey washing. Whey ie separated and hauled to local farmers a feed. The wastewater treatment facility consists of three septic tanks connected in series followed by a four stage rotating disc system, a clarifier, a chlorinator, and a polishing lagoon (Figure 6). The septic tanks provide flow equalization, clarification of raw wastewater and digestion of recycled biological sludge. The three cells have volumes of 6,450 gal, 5,040 gal, and 1,400 gal respectively providing detention times ranging from 2.5 to 4.3 days. The rotating biological filters furnished by Autotrol Corporation were located in a vault 12 feet below ground level. The BIO-DISC (Autotrol Corp) system consisted of feed chamber, four-stage BIODISC unit, and clarifier (Figure 3). The feed chamber is provided with a bucket feeder attached to the BIO-DISC shaft, thereby providing a constant feed to the biological unit. Each of the four BIO-DISC stages contain 22 molded polystyrene discs, 10 feet in diameter, providing a total area 13,800 square feet. The discs are rotated at a speed of 2 rpm (peripheral velocity of 62 feet per minute). Each stage provides a hydraulic detention time of 1.5 to 2.0 hours. The ~36-clarifier provides for overflow rates of 1800 to 2700 gallons/day/sq ft with sludge removal being provided by sludge scoops rotating at 4.5 rph. Sludge flows by gravity back to septic tank cell #1. A 4.5 foot deep polishing lagoon with a 30 day detention time is provided to "polish" final effluent from the BIO-DISC. Results of the performance of this treatment system for a 12 day period is presented in Table VII. It is apparent from examining this table that the septic tank did not provide the treatment expected. It was found that pH values dropped to valu of 5.5 in cell 2 resulting in inhibition of methane bacteria. It should be noted, however, that recovery of pH did occur on the rotating biological filters and that excellent BOD removals were still achieved. BOD removal exceeded 95 percent on the BIO-DISC throughout the test period (12 days). It should also be noted that the "polishing" value of 30 day lagoons is questionable. Burying of the BIO-DISC vault provided substantial insulation against cold winter temperatures. Minimum temperatures of the BIO -DISC mixed liquor never fell below 40°F even though ambient temperatures as low ~30°F were recorded. Several instances of shock loading were recorded during the 10 months of recorded data. Increased production resulting in peak discharges, raw milk spillage, and a whey dump were all experienced. The BIO-DISC unit continued to provide 60 to 75 percent treatment with full recovery after 2 to 3 days. Capital investment for this process was $35,000 or $6,500*per 1000 gallons of design capacity. Operation and maintenance are minimal. The operating power for the disc drive was 0.5 HP and the clarifier scraper *Estimated based on current biomodule cost projection -37-- eee - TABLE VII Performance of Septic Tank - BIO-DISC - Eiler Cheese Plant (7) Date Blow = Raw Haste i IL ieutte aa Eff. a Eueoue ee = Polishing Pond 1971 (gai/day) _(eg/1)__(ag/) (ag/1) _(ag/1) (g/t) (ag/1) (og/1) Apr.19 3676 840 360 7.6 863 (240 6.7 40 80 17 Vv 20° (3411 720 280 7.6 810 320 6.6 32 20 766 27 21 3626 780 220 7.6 640 220 6.7 21 80 7.8 32 220 4405 1700 340 7.3 675 180 6.7 29 20 77 22 2300 «4703 1240 640 71 955 280 6.7 34 40 7.4 53 24 1540 1100 220 7.1 | 1060 160 6.7 65 40 7.5 53 25 761 705 140 7.2 870 120 6.5 53 20 7.6 50 26 03477 840 460 7.1 | 1000 100 6.6 30 60 7.5 48 27-3030 1540 240 7.2 970 240 6.6 48 40 7.6 46 28 (3825 1150 240 7.0 | 1120 200 6.6 48 60 7.6 17 Avg. 3245 1062 314 73 852 206 6.7 41 46 7.6 37was driven by a 1/6 HP motor resulting in an annual power cost of $100.00 based on $80 per horsepower year. Miscellaneous costs for septic tank cleanout and approximately 1 hour per month for servicing would cost about $200.00. Total annual operating costs, then, would be approximately $300.00 or $0.035 per pound BOD. 3. Afolkey Coop Cheese Co., Afolkey, Illinois (5 ). The Afolkey Coop Cheese Co. produces approximately 8000 pounds/day of Italian Pizza cheese. Wastewater flows vary from 3600 to 9000 gallons per day with an average BOD concentration of 3500 mg/l. Wastevaters are generated from milk spillage and equipment washup. All milk is received in bulk truck: Cooling water is separately discharged and whey is hauled to local farmers for livestock feed. The wastewater treatment facility consists of an existing septic tank, appropriately modified, an aerated lagoon, a quiescent lagoon, and a sand filter (Figure 7). The existing 28,200 gallon three-celled septic tank providing an average hydraulic detention time of 3.1 days (maximum flow) was modified by the addition of paddle mixers placed within the first two equal sized tanks. The slow speed mixers were operated through a timer which regulated mixing for 15 minutes out of every two hours during times when the plant flow was off. This agitation provides intimate contact of anaerobic organisms with the raw wastewater. During periods of process operation, the mixers are shut off so as to allow maintenance of high concentrations of active biomass in the first two cells. The third cell provides for quiescent settling prior to discharge to the aerated lagoon. -38-The 10 foot deep aerated lagoon with a volume of 40,500 gallons provides a hydraulic detention time of 4.5 days at maximum flow. Aeration is provided by a 10 horsepower floating aerator located at the lagoon center. Sludge, pumped from the quiescent lagoon may be returned to the aerated lagoon to provide high biomass concentrations if required. Although originally uncovered, the aerated cell is now covered to reduce icing problems during the winter season. The 10 foot deep quiescent lagoon serves to provide for settling and additional stabilization. This lagoon has a volume of 20,900 gallons providing 2.3 days of detention time at maximum flow. A baffled overflow weir is provided along the entire width at one end for effluent discharge to the sand filter. The tank is equipped with a hopper bottom to allow sludge collection and removal by pumping. This tank was initially covered to eliminate excessive algal growths during the summer. (Figure 8) The nd filter was added to provide some means of effluent polishing. It consists of a 4 ft by 8 ft box approximately 12 inches deep. Approximately 6 inches of "filter sand" is underlain by coarse sand and pea gravel. Underdrain tile carry the filtered wastewater by gravity to the receiving stream. The wastewater is applied at a maximum rate of 11.7 allons/he/aq £t (0.2 gallon/min/eq ft). The filter is manually cleaned when the headlose exceeds approximately four or five feet. A small layer of old sand and sludge 1s removed and clean sand is added in this process. Cleaning is required approximately every three or four days although shorter periods of cleaning are required during periods of high solids overflow.Data on the performance of this plant is sketchy; the results of two surveys are presented in Table VIII. The April 4, 1972, data was obtained when the sand filter was not in use. Results of septic tank performance are also presented in Table VII. These data were collected prior to installation of the slow speed mixere in cells 1 and 2. There is every indication from the data collected to date that the system will produce a highly stabilized effluent well below the 30 mg/1 BOD currently required. It should be noted, however, that this performance is based upon flows considerably le than maximum. The best estimate of flow during the surveys reported was 3600 gallons per day, thereby resulting in detention times in the treatment units as follows: Septic Tank 7.8 days Aerated Lagoon 11.2 days Quiescent Lagoon 5.8 days Sand filter 4.7 gal/hr/sq ft. The capital investment in this plant in 1971 was approximately $25,000 or $2780 per 1000 gallons of design capacity. Operation and maintenance costs include approximately $1440.00 per year for power, $150 per year for septic tank pumping two or three times per year, and $10 per day for plant maintenance. That amounts to approximately $4200 per year ‘or unit costs of $1.27/1000 gallons or $0.004/1b BOD based on maximum design flow (9000 gallons per day at 3500 mg/1).TABLE VIIL Performance of Septic Tank-Lagoon System - Afolkey Coop Cheese Co. April 4, 1972 Eat. Flow = 3600 gal/day Est. BOD = 3500 mg/1 Final Effluent - No sand filtration BOD = 15 mg/1 TSS = 16 mg/l pH = 8.1 Nitrate N= 4.8 mg/1 October 20, 1972 Est. Flow = 3600 gal/d Est. BOD = 3500 mg/1 Final Effluent - Sand Filter BOD = 6 mg/l TSS = 22 mg/l pH 7.6 Nig-N = 0.13 mg/1 Kjeldahl-N = 2.91 mg/1 Nitrate-N = 14.5 mg/1 COD = 27 mg/l Total Phosphorus-P = 16.3 mg/L Septic Tank Performance (Prior to Mixing) BoD 7.8.8. mg/l mg/2. Dec. 1968 Cell 3 435 = Jan. 1969 Cell 1 2070 930 Gell 2 1245 440 Cell 3 >760 370 Feb. 1969 Cell 3 aus 560 PH - 40a -REFERENCES 1. Anon; The Cost of Clean Water, Volume III, Industrial Waste Profile No. 9 - Dairies, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Dept. of the Interior, Contract No. 14-12-102, June 30, 1967. 2. Birka, C.W. & Hynek, R.J., "Treatment of Cheese Proc Proc. 26th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, May 4~6, 1971. 3. Boyle, W.C. and Polkowski, L.B., "Treatment of Cheese Processing Wastewaters in Aerated Lagoons", Proc. Third National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes, New Orleans, La., March, 1972 4. Culp, R.L., and Culp, G.L., Advanced Wastewater Treatment, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1971 5. Foy, Robt., Carl C. Crane & Assoc. Inc., Madison, Wisconsin - Engineering Design of Afolkey Coop. Cheese Co. Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Harper, W. James & Blaisdell, John L., "State of the Art of Dairy Food Plant Wastes and Waste Treatment", Second National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes, March 23-26, 1971. 7. Womel, Jr., J.A. Foth, & Van Dyke, Green Bay, Wisconsin ~ Engineering Design and Performance Analysis of Eiler Cheese Plant Waste Water Treatment Facilities. 8. A.T. Kearney and Co., Inc., "Study of Wastes and Effluent Requirements of the Dairy Industry", Water Quality Office, Environmental Protection Agency, Cont. No. 68-01-0023, July, 1971. 9. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering, McGraw Hill, New York, 1972. 10. Nemerau, Neleon L., Theories and Practices of Industrial Waste Treatment, 11. The Ohio State University, "Dairy Food Wastes and Waste Treatment Practices", Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, Grant No. 120605GU, March, 1971. - 41Figure la CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE FLOW DIAGRAM, oy rn. cry efter Tamer cremare bueesen cess sua sts tk acess sunee Copied from Process Design Manual for Uj radiny Existing Plants, EPA Cont. No. 14-12-933, Figure 1b Contact Stabilization [erie acess suet Copied from Process Design Manual for Uj radin, Existing Plants, EPA Cont, No. 14-12-933, Figure 1c COMPLETELY-MIXED FLOW DIAGRAM, me cunirien acess suse Copied from Process Design Manual for Existing Plants, EPA Cont, No, 14-12-933, a wisremren on anu err ert Fim errivent radi; = 42 -Figure 2 Oxidation Ditch RR AERATION’ MAMMOTH ROTO! Figure 3 Rotating Biological Filter Courtesy of Autotrol Corp., Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Figure 4 Kent Cheese Company Wastewater Lagoons 43 -Figure 5 Kent Cheese Company Lagoons ye BEET Aerator Placement Figure 6 Eilers Cheese Company BIO-DISC Treatment Plant Ee te Ley ee Perens Sore | E40 ot a) i 7 ‘bio MOOULE vaiRT r aes 4} Cemannarion| Courtesy of Autotrol Corp., Milwaukee, Wisconsin. =aFigure 7 AFOLKEY CHEESE COMPANY “HH i ee nse] ' Wastewater Treatment Process Figure 8 Afolkey Cheese Company HES 1aREPRINTS ON FOREIGN PRACTICE IN THE TREATMENT OF DAIRY WASTESFOREIGN PRACTICE IN THE TREATMENT OF DAIRY WASTES ‘The reprint information in this section of the brochure has been reproduced with the permission of the Magazines or Journals from which each was taken. Reprints were taken from the following publications with the source of each article shown XVIII International Dairy Congress Vol. 1E International Dairy Federation Square Vergote 41 - B104O Brussels, Belgium Modern Dairy 51 #1 (1972) Maccan Publishing Company Box 366, Station F Toronto, Ontario M4Y 2L8 Journal of the Society of Dairy Technology, Vol. 25, No. 1, January 1972 172A Ealing Road Wembley, Middlesex, England Food Manufacture WT #5 (1972 Morgan-Grampian (Publishers) Ltd. 30 Calderwood Street Woolwich, London S. E. 186 QH EnglandPRETREATMENT OF DAIRY EFFLUENT BY THE TOWER AL2 SYSTEM 17, R ABHTON, A. J. OASTER Express Dairy Co, Lid. England a le biofiltration method for the treatment of trade effluents becoming more and more widely used in industry, but until recontly there were fe installations of this type—i.c. the tower system—in dairies and creameries, Hence, there is lutle experience of this method of treatment of dairy wastes or of its relative those of the more customary systems, which are largely based on percolating filtration. 2 ‘Some preliminary observations were made on three installations which are in vuse in daines in the United Kingdom, 3. At Creamery A the products manufactured were cream, milk powder, milk oncentrates, cottage cheese and soft cheeses, at Creamery B they were milk concen- lates, milk powder, cream and butter, and at Creamery C only yogurt, mainly of the fruit-containing type, was produced. In all three installations, a 2-tower series arrange- it with intermediate settling was adopted as a primary or “roughing” treatment preceding sccondary or “pol treatment by means of percolating filtration before final settiement and discharge of treated offluent to waterway, At Creameries A and B adequate provision had been made for preliminary holding, n order to ensure as far possible mi i in BOD loading during the i productive hours arrangements had been made for re-cycli constant irrigation of the system. At Creamery C, due to inci the expacity of the pretreated holding tank was insufficient, was little settlement and at times shock BOD loat flso adopted in this case. the result that there ‘of the system. Re-cycling was 4 Data relating to the three installations is given below. Creamery A B c Design specification (m*/d) 1,140 910 546 Maximum flow rate (m#/hr) 417 382 54.6 Primary balancing Adequate Adequat adequate Primary settlement ‘Adequate Inadequate Operation flow rate (max) (m*/m'/hr) 0048 0062 0.070 Input BOD (p pm.) 1,200-1,800 800-1,800 1,000-1,200 Outflow BOD ex towers (p.p.m.) 250-300 70-150 "200-300 Percentage reduction BOD 75-86 81-96 70-83 ‘These summarized results indicate the comparative efficiency of high rate filtration installations at three creameries. They illustrate that the efficiency of two installations {at Creamery A and Creamery C) could be improved by providing adequate facilities for settlement prior to the “roughing” treatment, and that at Creamery C there are indications that the system will withstand shock loading, 5. ‘The bios tower method has some merits as a first stage “roughit the eure of fay eucae, tone of te aban wr the Co constructional and operating costs, the relatively small ground area inert construction materials. In addition the efficiency in reducing BOD loading is high with short recovery times after shock loading, and ponding cannot occur, 9 XVIII International Dairy Congress Vol. 1E aDISPOSAL OF DAIRY FACTORY EFFLUENT IN NEW ZEALAND ANZ 1M, DOLBY ‘New Zealand Dairy Research Institute, Palmersion North, New Zealand 1 Problems of waste disposal have increased in recent years due to (a) concen- tration of manufacture in larger uni has been made possible by tanker collection and amalgamation of dairy companies, (b) more stringent regulations against pollu- ion. A number of rivers have been “classified,” ie. standards of water quality to be maintained in each section, depending on uses, have becn laid down. The Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 required all uses and discharges of water to be registered. Permits to discharge wastes into classified waters or righis to discharge elsewhere arc subject to defined conditions designed to maintain the quality of the receiving waters. Discharge of wastes into small streams is therefore restricted much more than that into large rivers. Limitations on temperature rise may preclude the discharge into small streams of cican but warm water, e.g. condenser or cooling water. 2. A brief account is given of methods in use. 3and 4. Types of wastes. Butter and milk powder factories offer only mild problems as, ‘wastes are limited to plant washings, although hot water from drying plants may cause problems where the volume of receiving water is limited. Whey from cheese and cascin factories is a much greater problem. Cascin plants also discharge wash water at least equal in volume to the milk received and containing whey equivalent to 10% of the milk volume. Uses for whey. In the Taranaki area a lactose factory processing 325,000 gal of whey per day utilizes the whey from cheese factories in a large part of the province. Elsc- ‘where pig feeding is the principal use. The pig population however, cannot be rapidly adjusted in numbers to correspond to the wide seasonal variation in milk production usual in New Zealand (a peak in October-November with a fall to almost zero in May- July). Consequently at least half the whey is surplus at the peak production period. Very little whey is dried as the returns make the operation uneconomic except for rennet casein whey. ‘Means of disposal. Only a few factories near large cities use municipal sewage faci ‘As the wastes from a large casein factory can be equivalent in B.0.D. to those from a city of 100,000 the cost of @ conventional sewage treatment plant would be beyond the means of a dairy company. A few coastal factories are able to discharge wastes into the sea. For the majority the best solution is irrigation on pasture land, preferably fon a farm owned by the dairy company. A rate of application of 5,000-7,000 gal of ‘whey equivalent per acre once in 14 days as suggested by McDowall & Thomas (1) hhas- usually been found acceptable, The total volume of wastes per acre will depend ‘on soil permeability and rainfall. Damage to pasture has usually been attributable to coverdosi ‘well-managed system the increase in soil fertility and stock carrying capacity of the farm makes a substantial contribution to running costs. 5. Irrigation on pestures has been found to be the most economical means of disposal of dairy wastes in most parts of New Zealand. Reference (1) MeDowall, F, H., Thomas, R, H.: NZ, Pollution Adv, Coun. Publ. No. 8 (1961)WATER POLLUTION BY FINNISH DAIRIES AN M. sini, J. NORDLUND, M. PANKAKOSKL, M. HEIKONEN Water Pollution Control Office, Helsinkt Valio Finnish Co-operative Dairies’ Association, Laboratory of Vaio, Helsinki, Finland 1 As a result, dairies started active water pollution research. Measures taken included: prevention of unnecessary discharge of milk residues or the first rinse water from butter, or whey, to the sewer, burning of separator slime, and restriction of phosphate-containing washing material fo 2 minimum. 2. In 1967 the extent to which these measures had decreased the waste water loads from dairies w 3 ‘The study covered 52 dairies of different types, representing 16% of the dairies and receiving about 30% of the milk produced in Finland. The studies were undertaken during the pasture-feeding period and again during the indoor feeding period. For sampling, the discharge pipe of the dairy was closed, and all the waste ‘water was measured. From it, single samples were taken, and these were blended Proportion to the amount of waste water to give the test sample. Cooling water was Rot included. The results of the investigations are given in the table. ‘Composition of waste water from Market milk dairy Butter factory Cheese factory pH 81 84 Conductivity Hyy/uS ol 1090 KMn0, mg Oz/l 340 aL ‘Suspended solids mel 354 306 Residue on evaporation mg/l 1069 1158 2192 Residue on ignition mg/L 349 395, 801 mg/Oz/l n3 a3 1045 mg N/I 52 SI 52 mg P/I 2 GB 1s mgQ,/l 1157 1316 2451 mg C/I 434 S12 23 mg/l 288 324 423 mg/l 252 300 931 mg TBS/! 40 27 26 Mill received 1000 kg/day 33.0 40.2 820 ‘Waste water, cu m/ 1000 kg milk. 161 163 23 The population equivalents (75 g BODs) per 1000 kg milk were 16, 17 and 30 for market milk, butler and cheese factories respectively. It appears that the measures taken for reducing the waste water discharge from dairies have been appropriate, ‘apecially in regard to butter and cheese dairies. ‘The total loading caused by dairies is about 1% of the waste water load of Finland, and the phosphorus loading corresponds to the waste water from about 60,000 inhabi- tants, 5. Some dairies have a purifying plant of their own, and attempts are also being ‘made to purify most of the waste water from dairies in regional or other communal purifying plans, reducing the phosphate as well a the organic load. 1COMPOSTING OF NON-FEEDABLE WHEY AND OF SLUDGE AZ FROM EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANTS . svosoDa Dairy Research Institute, Department of Water Management, Brno, Crechostovakia. 1, Unless all whey from cheese factories can be regularly returned to farms for feeding purposes, a surplus may be held at the factory. It will detenorate rapidly and ‘must be disposed of into farm dung-watcr (1) oF into isolated quarrics or sandpits or on to pastures. There is always danger that such whey will be directed into the scwerage system or into streams. Disposal of sludge from effluent treatment plants is also a problem. In large plant digested, or concentrated, precipitated and dried, or burnt. For small plants sludge in digested or dewatered on sludge beds, but digestion lowers the N content by only 40% and dowatering is slow and gives offensive odours. 2 Studies were made of the effectiveness of disposing of old whey by composting it on peat (2), and of the accelerated dewatering of sludge (3), 3. A site was sclected which would not endanger spring- or surface-waters. Fresh fibrous peat meal was formed into a composting bed 70 cm high. Old whey wat sprinkled over the surface. AS the peat compacted the depressed crown of the bed allowed whey to be empticd sno it. This was continued as long as the compost absorbed the whey. Absorption capacity was increased if the body of the compost was covered. ‘When the limit was reached the compost was re-bedded and application of whey Was continued. Peat composts for dewatering effluent sludge were established in the subsoil. The sludge was applied to a pan formed in the crown, After 3-10 days, according to the weather, the dewatered sludge was removed, taking some peat with it, (Roofing of the beds increases their efficiency). This lowered the middle of the bed, leaving the sides. When all peat was removed from the middle, the whole was re-worked. Several such beds were used in rotation. The peat was loosened in the new surface after every removal of sludge. The removed sludge was further composted separately. 4. By the composting, the pH of the peat was increased from 3.6 to 6.5-7.8, total N rose from 0.62 10 0.86—2.3% (on dry matter), moisture rose from Si to 81%, and absorption capacity fell from 7.6 to 1.6. Application of whey caused a drop temperature but after 2 days this rose to SOC. ‘There were no offensive smells. Under the conditions 1500 kg raw peat was sufficient for 40,000 1 whey. Costs were one-sixth less than those for transporting the whey. If the compost can be sold as fertilizer at a good price, there are economies of 60% for more. The compost contains O.8-3.3% N, 1.1-2.39% Pay, 0.41196 KyO, 57-79% ‘organic matter. 5. The peat compost beds provide an offective method of treatment. Their capital cost for = 60,000 I/day milk plant are half those for sludge digester or sludge beds, References (1) Rinn, Mi Die Molk.-Z1g. 83 (48) 1953-1955 (1962) (2) Svoboda, M.: Czechoslovak Patent No. 98095 (1961) (3) Svoboda, M., Salplachta, J.: Czechoslovak Patent No. 96227 (1960) 2PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF COMPARATIVE INVESTIGATIONS. AI2 ON TREATMENT PLANTS FOR FACTORY EFFLUENT 1 LYTREN, K. CHRISTENSEN The Government Research Institute Jor the Dairy Industry. Hilleréd, Denmark 1 nd physical respects, dairy effluent differs so much from ordinary sewage that conventional biological treatment plants are often considered unable 10 purify dairy effluent in a satisfactory manner unless it is frst mixed with substantia ‘Quantities of sewage. However, in many cases this is not possible, and therefore some dairy factories may have difficuitis in ensuring satisfactory purification of their effluent. 2 In order to solve the problems of such factories, information had to be sought fon the best way of treating dairy effluent when unmixed with other waste waters, 3. Comparative investigations of the purification of dairy effluent were started im October 1968 using different types of plants constructed for this purpose near the Inatitute ‘The dairy effluent was collected in an open levelling tank of 250¢cu m, from which it was distributed to: (a) a recirculation fiter containing 30 cu m of broken gran and a clarification tank of 10 cu m; (b) a plant for alternating double filtration consisting of two filters, cach containing 30 cu m of broken granite, and two clarifica- tion tanks of 10 cu m each; (c) an activated sludge plant with an aeration tank of 100 cu m and a clarification tank of 15 cu m; (d) a lagoon plant consisting of an anaerobic pond of 130 cu m followed by three aerobic ponds with a (otal surface of 500 sq m and a volume of 200 cu m. 4. The results of the first year were as follows: the average BOD, of the inflow was 517 mg Qq/1. During the year the hydraulic load of the recirculation filter was increased from 24 to 39 cu m/day, and the recirculation factor was reduced from 10 to 6. The organic load was 530 * 140 g BOD,/cu m/day. Removal of BOD, gradually increased from 70 to 90%. The hydraulic load of the altemating double filters was gradually increased from 42 to 58 cu m/day. The organic load was 440 * 110 BOD,/cu m/day. The order of the filters was changed each week. In the course of the year the removal of BODs increased from 70 to 90%. The hydraulic load of the ‘activated sludge plant was gradually increased from 26 to 46 cu m/day corresponding to an increase of the organic load from 13 to 22 kg BODs/day. Removal of BOD, remained at a constant percentage of about 95. The precipitation of the sludge was periodically poor. Duc to freezing and seeping the lagoon plant was not in regular ‘operation. In a few cases of organic overloading the filter plants proved more resistant than the activated sludge plant. 5. When the sizes of the plants are taken into account it is evident that more effluent could be treated by recirculation filtration than by alternating double filtration with similar removal rates of BOD,. The latter at no time proved entirely satisfactory. ‘The activated sludge plant had at all times a satisfactory effect. BOXYGEN UPTAKE OF FACTORY EFFLUENTS AI K. CHRISTENSEN The Government Research Institute for the Dairy Industry, Hilleréd, Denmark 1 “The pollution of dairy effluent is commonly expressed by its S-day biochemical ‘oxygen demand, BOD,. This is traditionally obtained by the dilution method. A new, lees laborious, ‘method consists of direct respirometric measurement of the oxygen uptate of the effluent. This principle is used in the Sapromat apparatus (J.M. Voith G. m. b, H.) which records hourly the amount of oxygen added to maintain atmo- spheric pressure above the surface of effluent in a flask. 2. This investigation was undertaken to determine whether the dilution method can be replaced by Sapromatdcterminations for dairy effluent, The rate of oxygen uptake of dairy effluent and its constituents was investigated to provide information for ‘work on treatment of dairy effluent by different methods. 3. Parallel determinations of BOD by the Sapromat-method and by the dilution method were made on effluents from various dairies and from treatment plants for dairy effluent, In addition Sapromat-determinations were made on various dairy pro- ducts. 4 For effluents from various daities, with BOD, values between 70 and 1700 ‘mg Oz/1, the Sapromat-results were on the average 1.3 + 0.2 times the results by the dilution method. Fresh samples of dairy efflucnt after 1, 2, 3 and 4 days in the Sapromat showed oxygen kes of on the average 10. 50, 78 and 91% of the BOD,, respectively. There was tn induction period on the first day, maximum oxidation on the sccond and third day and thereafter the oxidation rate decreased. Continuation of the analyses for one weck showed an increased in the oxygen uptake of about 15%. If samples, properly seeded and with pH adjusted to 6-8, were kept some time before ‘analysis a kind of maturation occurred, and the maximum oxidation rate was reached sooner, but after 3-4 days the stored and unstored samples showed almost the same ‘oxygen uptake. ‘Sapromat-analyses on whey, skim-milk and whole milk gave average BOD, values of $58,000, 90,000 and 153,000 mg Oz/1, respectively. Continuing the analyses for one ‘week showed an increase in the oxygen uptake of about 12, 1S and 18%, respectively. ‘As the theoretical oxygen demands arc about 2.8 g O2/g fat, 1.7 g Oa/g protein and 1.1 g Oa/g lactose the results correspond quite well with the composition of the pro- ducts. Compared with skim-milk the whey is decomposed faster and whole milk slower, indicating that, compared with protein, lactose is decomposed fastcr and fat slower. ‘Sapromat-determinations on effluents from plants purifying dairy effluent to different extents were on average 30% higher than the corresponding results by the dilution ‘method. Extending the time in the Sapromat by one week increased the oxygen uptake by about 159%. 5. ‘The BODs values found for dairy effluent with the Sapromat were 1.3 + 0.2 mes the values found with the dilution method. The standard deviation is attributable chiefly to the inaccuracy of the dilution method, and the Sapromat-values can be con- red quite reliable, although 30% higher. ‘The Sapromat-determinations showed that fresh dairy effluent is not decomposed ap- preciably by a short aeration. It is important to note that, although the oxygen uptake during the first days was higher for stored samples than for freah ones, the final BOD,'s of fresh and stored samples were almost identical. “4BIOCENOSIS IN DAIRY WASTES PURIFICATION PLANTS AZ 3. orn Dairy Rerearch tnstute, Department of Water Management, Brno, Czechoslovakia 1, Several dairy waste purification methods have been successfully. Czechoslovakia. These are single-stage fermentation (1, 2, 3, 4), high trickli (5, 6), set of stabilization lagoons (7), assimilating (oxidation) pond (8), activated sludge (9), and oxidation ditch. A complete study of these processes included com- parison of their economics (10). 2. The studics here reported were concerned with the chemical and biological aspects of the processes, 3. Analyses covering physical, chemical, bacteriological, and biocenclogical faipects were carried out at selected treatment’ plants. Results’ were compared and connections established. 4. In laboratory and semi-pilot single-stage fermentations, two types of bio cznosis wore found: yeast and Magellac. These arise and persist according to conditions ‘of operation, particularly concentration of effluent and pH, suggesting that control of such factors could give higher efficiency. In full-scale planis there was also found an exponential relationship between the volume of introduced air and the count of Diplostonrarinae fagetlates. In high trickling filters the biological films were compact and thick but through-fow ‘was good. The films consisted mainly of zoogloca bacteria. Only rarcly were filamental bactena of the genus Beagiatoa not present, then being replaced by the mycelia of Denieromycetes. Flagelates were common, particularly with heavy loading, which also affected infusorians. Best purification is accompanied by the development of meso- saprobic organisms, particularly infusorians. Activated sludg the filamental bacteria Sph rotilus, which disapy lization. Flagellates increase with heavier loading. Peritricha are an index of good purification and low B.O.D. of output. ‘The relation between numbers of infusorians of families Amphileptidac and Trachelidae and the age of the sludge may be an index of the degree of aerobic stabilization of the sludge. Stabllization lagoons have three reservoirs, the first or bacterial zone, in which the liguid is grey-black and putrid, is anaerobic, Biocenosis is hypersaprobic in winter, polysaprobic in summer, The second or phytoplankton zone 1s coloured by the micro. vegetation. Biocenosis is between poly- and alpha-mesosaprobity. Green algae and exyptomonades predominate. The third or zooplankton zone has clear water, develops cly in summer and is needed for maximum purification. The crustaceoplankton, especially large cladocera are characteristic. 5. Study of biocenosis in waste water treatment can lead to more efficient opera tion. References (1) Svoboda, M., Salplachta, J.: Czechorlovac Patent No. 96 226 (1960) (2) Svoboda, M., Salplachta, J. etc.: Pru. Potravin 14 (4) 193-197 (1963) (3) Svoboda, M., et al.: Prum. Potravin 18 (7) 342-351 (1967) (4) Gillar, J., Marvan, P.: Sci. Pap. Inst. Chem. Tech, Prague 8 (2) 221 (1964) (5) Svoboda, M,, et al.: XVI Int. Dairy Congr. F 723-134 (1966) 3.: Prum. Potravin 19 (6) 324-330 (1968) ‘XVI Int. Dairy Congr. F 715-722 (1966) (8) Gillar, 1: Vodni hospodaratvi, B 19 (4) 112 (1969) (9) Bunesova, S.: Prum. Potravin 16 (10) 506 (1965) bECONOMY OF DAIRY WASTES DISPOSAL IN CZECHOSLOVAK ANZ DAIRY PLANTS. M. SVORODA, J. OILLAR, J. BALPLACHTA, M. HLAVKA Dairy Research Institute, Department of Water Management, Brno, Czechoslovakia and 2. We have tried, ax far as it has been possible, to apply all methods of dairy wastes purification that would give statisfactory results in Czechoslovak dairy factories. Jn recent years we have endeavoured to evaluate these purification plants in the technological-cconomical sense (1). The aim of these studies was to find suitable purifying methods for future application under varying conditions in Czechoslovak dairy factories. 3. Eleven dairy effluent purification plants were studied during at least two seasons. Physico-chemical, bacteriological, hydrobiological and economic aspecis were taken into consideration, To make comparisons clearer, additional costs incurred because of unusual local condi- tions, e.g. distances, were deducted from capital expenditures. Operating costs were bbased on the average charge for electric power. As in Czechoslovakia the pollution of water streams is subject of payment of indemnitics fee, the average indemnity charges actually paid by the factories in the period concerned scrved at a basis for the esti tion of anticipated costs if a purification plant was not installed. In this way Possible to estimate the return on investment. ‘The methods of treatment studied were:—intensive aeration, single stage fermentation, stabilization lagoons, tower trickling filter, activated sludge ‘with mechanical acration, assimilation pond and oxidation ditch. 4. It was found that the operating costs in cach purification plant were mostly influenced by the cost of labour, by charges for electric power and by amortization of equipment. All these costs varied depending on the method and type of purification plant used. Amortization charges accounted for ca. 50% of all operating costs. Relatively large differences were found in costs per 1 kg BODs ranging from 0.47 to 9.52 Kes and depending mainly on different organic load and volume of wastes actually treated. 18 on the method used the time for return of investment ranged from : the stabilization lagoons and activated sludge process with mechanical aeration to 17.5 years for the assimilation pond. 5. The following purification processes appeared from these studies a8 most ‘economic:—stabilization lagoons, assimilation pond, activated sludge and oxidation . Which of the processes should be used depends largely on the location of the Factory and the topography of the available terrain. ‘The assimilation ponds and the lagoons require many hectars of surface area and the ‘oxidation ditches some hundreds of square metres, This limits their use to factories situated in open country. The activated sludge process can be used, with minimal protective hygienic zone, in partly populated localities. Reference (1) Svoboda, M. et al: Prum. potravin. 20 (6) 182-186 (1969) 16BASIS FOR THE COSTS OF SEWAGE IN PUBLIC Al2 SEWAGE-TREATMENT. A SCMULZ-FALKENHAIN Biiderich bei Disseldor}, Federal Republic of Germany i Wastes and rain-water from dairies are often led to public sewage pl These may be plants for sewage diversion and for sewage-treatment. The plants for sewage diversion consist of a network of pipelines for sewage and one for rain-water. They may also only have one network of pipelines, through which sewage as well as rain-water is drained. Owners of these plants are communities, cities and sewage-associations. 2 For the drainage of wastes and of rain-water into public plants the dairies have to bear the actual costs incurred by them. This applics equally for the sewage of all other properties including private housing. Social factors arc not taken into account. For the draining of sewage and of rain-water, annual payments, as well as single payments and annual payments are demanded; the single payments can be considered as annual payments in another form. n ‘The costs, which result from the draining of sewage and of rain-water into the public plants are quite different according to whether pipeline connection or sewage-treatment olved. With pipeline connection of waste watcrs, the costs are determined mainly by the length of the pipelines and thus by the size-of the properties. ‘The quantity of waste water influences the costs generally only very little. The cost fater connections depend on the length of the pipelines and the size of the Propertics and also on the highest quantity of rain-water drained away in a second. ‘The quantity of waste water treated is of importance in determining the costs of the sewage-treatment. When ram-water is also treated, part of the costs are attributable to rain-water. The mature of the wastes can influence the costs of sewage-treatment. 4 The standards for the calculation of costs, which are demanded from dai for the connection of wastes and of rain-water 10 the public sewage disposal plant are very different. In some cases, the quality of sewage treated is used as the only standard. In most cases, a degressive cost calculation is also taken into account. The amounts charged for connection only are calculated on the same basis. According to these standards, the dairies are required to pay disproportionately high amounts, compared with private houscholders. The costs for scwage-treatment are often calculated according to the quantity of sewage. If there are additional costs based on the nature of the wastes, thi partly be taken into account by quantity factors. 5, Correct payments for the connection of wastes and rain-water to public plants, based on the actual costs incurred, can be determined if the total costs for public sewage plants are divided into the costs for waste water connection, rain- water connection, waste-water treatment and rain-water treatment. ‘The size of property is a main factor for determining waste water connection costs and the volume and nature of waste water are major factors in determining waste water treatment costs. In the case of rain-water, the size of property as well ax the ‘maximum quantity of rain-water drained per second are major factors. To this must be added possibly part of the costs of waste water treatment. v